Re: changing the default syslog daemon for lenny?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: changing the default syslog daemon for lenny?
- From: Tollef Fog Heen <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:55:35 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mail-followup-to: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <1201482655.18124.43.camel@petrie> (William Pitcock's message of "Sun\, 27 Jan 2008 19\:10\:55 -0600")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <479D27FB.firstname.lastname@example.org> <1201482655.18124.43.camel@petrie>
* William Pitcock
| I agree with this. Additionally, Balasz Schielder (Balabit) makes people
| who contribute to syslog-ng sign a contributory license agreement ,
| so that they can be included in syslog-ng premium, which is in my view
| against the whole purpose of open source. If you disagree with signing
| the CLA, your patch is rejected. As such, I feel that syslog-ng is not a
| good choice for the default syslogd in Debian.
FWIW, if you want your patch to end up in any Apache project, you have
to sign their contributor licence agreement. Similarly, for GNU
software, you have to assign copyright to FSF.
The syslog-ng author putting the changes into a closed-source version
(if I understand the paragraph quoted correctly), which is fine as
long as the licence allows it. You might not think it's in the spirit
of free software, but it's certainly something one of the arguments
some people are using to get people to use the BSD licence in favour
of the GPL.
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are