Re: bind8 vs bind9
* Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> [2002-11-19 15:51]:
> 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
According to the FSF definition of 'proprietary'
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware>
I think that DJB's software is proprietary because of the restrictions
placed on distribution. You may be using a different definition of
'proprietary'.
I think that DJB does have a license for his software to allow for
certain types of distribution. <http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html> for
example looks like a license to me. <http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html>
is a waiver of certain rights provided by copyright preventing
distribution - the rights set out at <http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html>
- so probably strictly shouldn't be called a license. I assume DJB
thinks that his licensing scheme is enforcable, otherwise why use it?
The enforcement element can be activated if people start distributing
versions of his tools that he hasn't authorised for distribution.
It seems to me that the point is not that software licenses as a whole
are unenforcable, but that software licenses that aim to remove the
rights provided by <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html>
are unenforcable. These rights do not include the right to distribute
modified software. The key difference between the GPL and DJB's
licenses (I think) is that the GPL grants you much greater rights beyond
these rights with regards to distribution. This is essentially why
DJB's software is proprietary. If somebody starts distributing a new
unauthorised version of qmail, DJB can say "I didn't give you the
right to do that". If somebody starts distributing a new version of
exim, well that's what the GPL is all about.
DJB's license is not a free software license according to
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense>
<http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#djb> makes some interesting
points about this issue.
Reply to: