On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:24:22PM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 03:11:23PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:38:13PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> > >
> > > At 2002-11-18T18:12:13Z, "Gary Hennigan" <glhenni@sandia.gov> writes:
> > >
> > > > ...if security is *the* major concern in a DNS installation it's probably
> > > > a good idea to stay away from BIND altogether.
> > >
> > > I'd disagree for one main reason: BIND is Open Source, and tinydns is not.
> >
> > Uh, of course tinydns (sic; it's really djbdns) is open source.
> > Perhaps you meant to say _DFSG Free_ ?
>
> Uh, no. Open Source is pretty much equivalent to DFSG-free (APSL aside).
> DJB's software is not Free as in speech. It's proprietary with source
> available.
Uh, no. There's nothing "proprietary" about it. Have you read
http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html ? DJB's position seems to be that
software licenses are unenforceable, so he chooses to not have one.
Instead, he places restrictions on distribution (I assume he asserts
his rights under copyright law as justification). See
http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html
I'm not saying I agree 100% with DJB, just as I find some of RMS's
positions to be somewhat questionable. However, I find that many
people who do constantly badmouth DJB _software_ do it because they
have an axe to grind with DJB ... perhaps because he is a bit, er,
abrasive.
So let's dispense with the FUD, shall we?
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
This message cannot be considered spam, even though it is. Some
law that never was enacted says so.
-- Arkadiy Belousov
Attachment:
pgpW7ER1eZXgp.pgp
Description: PGP signature