OpenBSD Removes qmail and djbdns From Ports Tree

KingArtr writes: "qmail and djbdns have been dropped from the OpenBSD ports tree. According to the message from Theo de Raadt at the OpenBSD Ports Archive its because the license does not permit modification.". Update by nik: Note that NetBSD and FreeBSD continue to include qmail in their ports trees. DJB's license forbids redistribution of modified binaries, but does not forbid distribution of a 'framework' for modifying the source code.

Comments

Kudos to Theo for sticking by his guns

[bee]

Looks like djb doesn't want to play by Theo's rules. No matter, that's his choice. But Theo chose what he wanted for OpenBSD a long time ago, and if djb doesn't like that, then that's his problem. Personally, I agree with Theo on many points: /usr/ports should stick to /usr/local for where they write stuff (I've never liked the whole damn /opt idea that Solaris popularized), and for pity's sake, anyone that thinks their software is important enough that it needs its own directory off / needs a serious ego-deflating! For all that people critisize RMS and his ego, all of the GNU tools are very well-behaved in that department. Would that others were equally as nice.

Re:Standard Theo Behaviour

[squiggleslash]

Crap.

Theo and the rest of the OpenBSD have been performing a licence audit of OpenBSD, as part of the fall-out of Darren Reed changing (sorry, "clarifying" *cough*) the IPFilters licence. This is a responsible thing to do, given that many third parties redistribute OpenBSD.

In most cases where a licence collision has been found, the licencer has agreed to changes, or the OpenBSD team have been able to make simple substitutions. In this case, the licencers have stuck by their guns. Not surprisingly, the OpenBSD team have opted to stay out of the compound, rather than risk being shot at.

Theo gets a lot of stick largely because he has a reputation for being abrasive, not least because of the whole reason why OpenBSD was created in the first place. However, if a licencer puts out a licence for a piece of software demanding that nobody make changes to it, or in Darren Reed's case, pretends that his licence, which previously granted a blanket right to use and redistribute, always had such a no-modify clause, then what do you think the responsible thing for the OpenBSD team to do is?

If developers want to have their code in OpenBSD, which they have every right not to want, then it is they who need to bend. Theo, and the rest of the OpenBSD team, is quite right to demand that the only code present in OpenBSD be modifyable by both the OpenBSD team and by end users. That's not childish. That's commonsense, and that's legally the only responsible position to take.