Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 21:17:31 +0000 (GMT) From: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@u.washington.edu> To: FreeBSd Chat list <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: New bind not completely open source... why GPL is not always best Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909122103360.9643-100000@s8-37-26.student.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <19990912110656.A81750@daemon.ninth-circle.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>* Francisco Reyes (freyes@inch.com) [990912 04:44]: >>There is an article at Linux Weekly News http://www.lwn.net/ how BIND >>8.2 will have some code which although still free to distribute it will >>not meet %100 the definition of Open Source. I read this brief on slashdot. What /. says is "does not meet the Free Software Definition of Debian." Does it really not meet the OSD from opensource.org? Is DNSafe an addon that sullies tho openness of the entire BIND package? This whole thing seems to be a great way to plug something BINDish from the Gnu camp. I read slashdot a lot. When it comes to licensing I take it with two tablespoons of soy sauce. Beside, read Ousterhout's commitment to free software. He states that if he ever closed TCL then the free software community would start with the last free version and continue development. BIND is also subject to this threat. The scary part is that the NIH people are pushing their ground up reimplementation, not for the sake of technology, but licensing. The B in BIND stands for Berkeley. If BIND ends up closed there is nothing preventing *BSD from becoming the ersatz custodian of BIND. Thank You, | http://students.washington.edu/jcwells Jason Wells | "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither | freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9909122103360.9643-100000>