Mailing List Archive

Quoting James Couzens:

> It is. There are restrictions as to how it may be packaged. All of the
> FUD surrounding DJB Software appears to have originally been started by
> Bernard Rosenkraenzer of Red Hat and further perpetuated by Rick Moen
> (rick@linuxmafia.com).

It is regrettable that I cannot write about software and licensing
without being the subject of ongoing personal attack, but I've come to
expect this of a certain software fan club. And, hey, at least it's
better than being sent legal threats -- but I'll get to that later.

James quotes Prof. Bernstein:

> - Rick Moen says you can revoke these permissions by changing your
> web page!
> - Wait, now Rick Moen says he never said that!

And thus James, like Prof. Bernstein, disposes of my license critique
without correctly characterising it at all. I'll be charitable and
assume that James, _unlike_ Prof. Bernstein, simply misread (or failed
to read) what I wrote. By contrast, I strongly suspect that Prof.
Bernstein was well aware of pulling a fast one in ignoring the substance
of my essay by distracting people's attention, since I've observed him
doing it frequently with other licence critics, since then. That is an
unfortunate habit, as it interferes with clarity about relevant facts.

My essay is at:
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=warez#djb

The follow-on essay, which Prof. Bernstein selectively quotes from in an
attempt to assert my dishonesty, merely points out that I had _not_
claimed Bernstein could withdraw his permissions by removing his Web
page, and links to where I had prominently corrected in public people
who had so claimed.

It also points out that this irrelevant digression sadly misses the
point of the antecedent, earlier essay -- almost as if Prof. Bernstein
were trying to evade the point by posting a non-sequitur personal attack
as a diversion. (Gasp! Could it be?)

> This ENTIRE issue honestly appears to be based in ego-land.

Thus illustrating Moen's First Law of Debate
(http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/lexicon.html#moenslaw-debate1): "No matter
what the issue, someone will try to turn it into a personality dispute."

No, actually, the entire issue is based in licensing and code.

> What pissed Bernard, Moen, and others appears to be purely rooted
> within this issue of 'renaming files and directories'.

No, actually:

1. Moen isn't pissed off -- although getting a legal threat from Prof.
Bernstein for "libelling" his software, and, when I politely referred
him to my attorney, watching him drop that and switch to character
assassination didn't endear me to the gentleman. All I attempted to do
in my essay was have a URL to refer people to, because I got tired of
repeatedly explaining why I _personally_ don't like or use Prof.
Bernstein's software.

2. Moen is perfectly happy with other people liking that software.
That's entirely their concern.



So, let's dispose of all of the above idiotic and time-wasting
posturing and irrelevant rhetorical side-shows -- which insult
everyone's intelligence, James -- and get back to the point:

>> What we need to know is DJBDNS free or not?

> It is.

The notion of "free" in the software context basically boils down to
access to source code, the legal right to fork it, and the right to
create and redistribute derivative works and use them for any purpose.
(There are details that have cropped up, as clever people have tried to
find ways to apparently grant those rights while denying their
substance, resulting in codifications like the Open Source Definition,
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php . And copyleft
restrictions within reason are not considered to prevent the software
from being "free".)

One major consequence of software not being "free" in that sense is
that, absent the right to fork, the project dies completely when the
developer retires or loses interest, as nobody else has the legal right
to create and distribute derivative works, and the software becomes in
practic unmaintainable. (Yes, you can continue swap patches of your own
authorship, but that's no way to run a project.)

qmail, like most other of Prof. Bernstein's packages, was distributed
under a very generous licence that, however, lacks the legal right to
fork (to create derivative works and new versions), which is reserved by
default operation of copyright law to the copyright holder.

Thus it is not "free" by all conventional meanings of that term. It is
gratis for usage, and those who like it (which happens not to include
yr. humble correspondent) owe Prof. Bernstein a debt of gratitude.

For their sake, I hope Prof. Bernstein continues to maintain his
proprietary (if free-of-charge) code for a long time -- since,
afterwards, it's doomed to be gradually left behind.

> It makes absolute sense. As a software developer myself, its a
> nightmare trying to get accurate information when a new bug arrives
> when its only happening on certain distros and OSes, and yes I have
> personally expensed several hours that I'll never get back helping a
> user who if he had only simply installed my software as it was
> intended, with the intended names and locations he never would have
> had any problems, and even if he did, trouble shooting would have been
> very easy.

Then, you presumably don't issue code under a free (aka "open source")
licence. It's your perfect right to have those views, exactly as it is
Prof. Bernstein's.

But then your software is not under a free / open-source licence, and
you should get used to people like me saying so, perhaps even on Web
pages. If you make legal threats about our "libelling" your software,
however, please expect to be politely referred to our attorneys and
ignored.

And so, no, it's not free. I'd say I suspect you already knew that,
but that would be uncharitable.

--
Cheers, There are 10 types of people in this world, those who know quaternary,
Rick Moen those who only recently figured out Ron Fabre's "ternary" .sig, those
who're completely confused, and those who hate self-referential jokes.

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

Rick,

On Sun, 2004-12-19 at 13:52 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:

I see your point. And from your standpoint your argument appears to
have merit, however its unfortunately entirely biased by your
interpretation of "free", or which interpretation of free you wish to
associate with all software.

I am able to do whatever it is I wish to do with DJB's software,
including distribute it, provided I adhear to some very logical and easy
to follow guidelines -- guidelines that can even be side stepped
provided he is informed and approves. Given the extreme flexibility
being afforded through the referenced terms, I have not yet to date
arrived at a point where I've felt or needed to contact DJB and ask for
anything (having been led to believe that should I run into
circumstances preventing me from adhearing to said terms, and having
exercised a best effort basis to adhear to said terms that I shall be
afforded some further flexability by DJB).

You can distribute his software. You can even violate his distribution
terms provided you can show that you've made a best effort basis to meet
his terms, by simply asking him. Why would he write something and be as
adamant about it has he has, if he was not willing to honour them?
Without trying to sound like a DJB zealot or whatever people are calling
them these days, I personally do not see a problem.

All of the reasons that I have been able to read of all lead me to
believe that someone has either not made a best effort to meet the
terms, or has had a frivilious or otherwise unwarranted reason to do
something with his code and been denied either verbally rebuked by DJB
or prevented from futher forward movement by adherance to the license
terms.

> One major consequence of software not being "free" in that sense is
> that, absent the right to fork, the project dies completely when the
> developer retires or loses interest, as nobody else has the legal right
> to create and distribute derivative works, and the software becomes in
> practic unmaintainable. (Yes, you can continue swap patches of your own
> authorship, but that's no way to run a project.)

I disagree. Its not the way YOU would perhaps run a project, but
clearly given the sheer volume of "patch-work" available for qmail and
other related DJB software illustrates that it is indeed a viable way to
run a project. Keeping things objective, just because YOU do not
particularly care for or believe something is viable or acceeptable one
way, does not mean you are being accurate or truthful, its simply your
opinion, and as such would be MUCH better expressed as such, something
you do not appear to do. Not doing so lends your words to much
potential misinterpretation by the reader.

There is a lot of software out there. Frankly, his is the best IMHO.
Its the most secure, its so incredibly tiny, simple, powerful, flexible,
and its free. These are facts, and although they are also my opinion, I
believe his code stands up on its own to refute anyone stating
otherwise. In addition there are loads of patches allowing people to
exercise their right to modify and alter his code to their hearts
content.

I can write a patch against the code, and I can release it. Just
because I can't bundle it all up and fork it out doesn't make it any
less free. Its just not what you are used to. Believe me, its just as
free. Look at the end result. I can still modify the code, I can still
distribute it, I can call my distribution whatever I want. All of these
things leave me free to do whatever I want with it. The only catch is
that I include an unmodified copy of the original code as he released it
and then allow the end user to apply "my version" or "my changes"
themselves. It just doesn't sound any where nearly as bad as you seem
to wish to make out. Its not really that difficult. Its simply another
way of doing things.

This way of doing things makes a lot of sense to me. It allows Dan to
not only retain full credit for the portions of work that are his, but
it allows him to very easily identify when a problem is with his code,
and when it is with some fork. Have a look at Gentoo, and emerge a few
packages for example. Loads of packages have disclaimers "do not
contact this group, or that group they do not support this". Obviously
these disclaimers are here because its a problem. Its a headache I want
nothing to do with, and the way DJB goes about it makes a lot of sense
to me, and has probably resulted in considerable time savings not
chasing down false bugs and problems related to someone elses code
changes.

> And so, no, it's not free. I'd say I suspect you already knew that,
> but that would be uncharitable.

An so yes, actually it _IS_ free. You see, I can say it too. And you
know what, given your line of logic, I'm also correct. How can be both
be correct? Silly isn't it?

Perhaps not free by the definition that you and others wish to attribute
to "free software", but you are absoultey and completely wrong to state
that it isn't free. You can not say its not free just because it
doesn't meet your desired interpretation of free. I feel incredibly
free to do whatever I please with his code, and I'm exceptionally
grateful that I am able to do so.

If you wish to go around stating that its not free, you're just going to
wind up either coming across ignorant and attract unecessary attention.
You would do well to state something like:

"DJB's software is not licesned under the GPL or BSD licenses and thus
the freedoms commonly attributed to software licensed under the GPL or
BSD licenses are not present with his code. I suggest you become aware
of the terms associated with using DJB code."

You'd never piss anyone off, and you would be 100% accurrate. Stating
that its not free is a flagrant abuse of the tongue and a statement that
is entirely based upon the interpretation of the term "free" one wishes
to assign to it.

I apologize for quoting you in a manner that affords the misapplication
of context, however it is often very hard to make a point in a message
without including scads of reference material directly in the text and
expect the end user to actually read it. Granted, it would have served
me better to have linked the document you linked, and had I been able to
procure it at the time of writing I would have done so.

So let me take my own advice, and refrain from flat out referring to his
code as "free". I always when discussing his code provide reference to
or direct quotes from the terms readily available on his website so that
the reader does not mistakenly confuse the intended "level of freeness"
I am trying to attribute.

I do not know you, and thus, I have no opinion of you other than what I
can obtain from this conversation and possibly in future, other
conversations. I'm not of the habbit of reading someone's on-line or
other opinion of someone based on some experience(s) they have had with
that individual and repeating it verbatim and treating it as gospel.
That being said, thank you for tactfully responding to my message and
clearly iterating your particular viewpoint without resorting to
explitives and personal attacks. It is appreciated.

Hopefully I have been able to express my viewpoints more clearly and in
more detail such that you can understand why I would argue this
particular topic, one that many vehemently try to avoid.

> Then, you presumably don't issue code under a free (aka "open source")
> licence. It's your perfect right to have those views, exactly as it is
> Prof. Bernstein's.
>
> But then your software is not under a free / open-source licence, and
> you should get used to people like me saying so, perhaps even on Web
> pages. If you make legal threats about our "libelling" your software,
> however, please expect to be politely referred to our attorneys and
> ignored.

I release my code under the "codeshare" license. This license is
identical to the "libspf" license which it was originally called and
which my SPF library is released under. My terms are essentially that
that the copyright must be retained and other than that, the end user is
free to do as they please. I choose to release software in this manner
because it suits me, and for all parties involved, including commercial
entities it is more palatable than say the DJB way. The goal with SPF
was to provide code and allow for any use by anyone in any way they see
fit. For this particular project, and others associated with it, I
think its quite apt. However, should I embark on a larger project I
will very likely adopt something along the lines of a DJB license should
I wish to retain involvement in the project or wish that any code
released remain in its original released form.

Don't forget, in all honesty you don't really NEED to modify his code
unlike so much out there. I can untar qmail-1.03 and have a working
mail server. If I want to add anti-virus, or anti-spam, I can do all of
this without patching a single bit of code. Of course this is stated to
make a point, because indeed its the truth, however in practice, the
netqmail project is a more intelligent choice perhaps because Dan
consented to its extistence and it has good oversight and ships with
just the essential patches to bring it up to snuff as far as modern
compilers and the Internet "today" is concerned.

Last but not least, you need not worry of me attempting to proceed with
legal action against you for having an opinion. Were it my software
that you were recklessly throwing around sentances constructed to
literally state "its not free" I would likely feel more passionate about
it and who knows, perhaps I would feel like it was necessary to proceed
in that direction.

At any rate, thanks for taking the time to iterate your stance and I
look forward to a response from you if you deem it necessary.

Cheers,

James

--
James Couzens,
Programmer
^ ( ( (
((__)) __\|/__ __|+|__ '. ___ .'
(00) (o o) (0~0) ' (> <) '
---nn-(o__o)-nn---ooO--(_)--Ooo--ooO--(_)--Ooo---ooO--(_)--Ooo---
http://libspf.org -- ANSI C Sender Policy Framework library
http://libsrs.org -- ANSI C Sender Rewriting Scheme library
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PGP: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7A7C7DCF

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

Quoting James Couzens (jcouzens@6o4.ca):

> I see your point. And from your standpoint your argument appears to
> have merit, however its unfortunately entirely biased by your
> interpretation of "free", or which interpretation of free you wish to
> associate with all software.

The problem with this assertion is that it really wasn't _my_
interpretation of "free", but rather one clearly implied by the
surrounding context of the preceding discussion, carried out by the
other people who raised this question on the "discuss" list. This is
often but certainly not always the case when discussing software: The
word is problematic in having too many meanings, absent context -- so
one is utterly dependent on checking context to help one disambiguate.

Which is, in fact, what I did.

Which means the rest of your argument is non-sequitur. Sorry.

Personally, I tend to _avoid_ using the terms "free" and "non-free" for
software, specifically because they cause so much confusion. Instead, I
refer to software being either open source or proprietary. (Neither
term is intended as derogatory: There are many fine, generously created
proprietary packages, such as most of Prof. Bernstein's codebases.)

If asked what I mean by those terms in the software context, I am glad
to clarify: Open source means in compliance with the Open Source
Definition, a set of metrics that roughly approximate the _right to fork_
(plus the right to create and distributed derivative works, and use them
for any purpose). Proprietary means otherwise.

No right to fork means, as noted, a project doomed to death in the long
term -- or the sort of patch-swapping afterlife you claim with a straight
face is a workable development model. (We'll just agree to disagree.
The existence of huge numbers of qmail patches not regression tested
against each other in _no_ way demonstrates your claim: That is not a
whole lot like issuing the equivalent of new releases through nothing
more than patch-swapping. If the need to do that _does_ arise, and it
actually proves workable and doesn't drive everyone crazy, I'll buy you
a tall frosty one out of sheer amazement.)

Thus the main long-term reason people are interested in knowing if a
codebase is proprietary: If it is, then it's a single-sourced offering
that will at some point cease, for practical purposes, to be maintainable.

> Without trying to sound like a DJB zealot or whatever people are calling
> them these days, I personally do not see a problem.

Yes, I know: You're happy with proprietary software. I'm happy you're
happy, and have no interest in convincing you (or anyone else)
otherwise. All I've done (in the Web essay you referred to, and
elsewhere) is state why *I* don't like or use the gentleman's stuff.

For that, I find myself personally attacked by DJBware fanciers, again
and again, all around the Internet -- and subjected to legal threats and
public attacks on my character by Prof. Bernstein. I find that very
regrettable, and very odd.

> I disagree. Its not the way YOU would perhaps run a project, but
> clearly given the sheer volume of "patch-work" available for qmail and
> other related DJB software illustrates that it is indeed a viable way to
> run a project.

As noted, your conclusion strikes me as non-sequitur. But I'm agreeing
to disagree, and wish you luck with that development model, should the
need ever arise with a major software project of public interest.

> This way of doing things makes a lot of sense to me.

Yes, you're happy with proprietary software. A lot of the rest of us
prefer open source, in general.

So, in the end, we're both happy. But you somehow felt obliged to impugn my
motives -- incorrectly -- even though you didn't know me from Adam. Thus
my post.

> That being said, thank you for tactfully responding to my message and
> clearly iterating your particular viewpoint without resorting to
> explitives and personal attacks. It is appreciated.

You're quite welcome.

> Don't forget, in all honesty you don't really NEED to modify his code
> unlike so much out there.

When I was chief sysadmin at a Linux commercial support firm in San
Francisco that shall go nameless ;-> , we did not find this to be the
case, at all. Unfortunately, I don't have handy the list of patches we
needed to apply against 1.03, but it was very extensive.

--
Cheers, There are 10 types of people in this world, those who know quaternary,
Rick Moen those who only recently figured out Ron Fabre's "ternary" .sig, those
who're completely confused, and those who hate self-referential jokes.

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com

Rick Moen wrote:

>The problem with this assertion is...
>
Ok, swell. Maybe an interesting conversation, but not the right list.
Try qmail@list.cr.yp.to

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-devel@v2.listbox.com