Bind v. TinyDNS

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 12:17, Christopher Chan wrote:
> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
> djbdns is free and the source code is open.

1. Free Software doesn't talk about gratis software but of software that
gives its users 4 basic freedoms:
  0. the freedom to run the program for any purpose
  1. the freedom to study the program and adapt it for your needs
  2. the freedom to redistribute copies
  3. the freedom to publish improved versions of the software

2. Open Source doesn't talk about software with access to code, but of
software whose license has 9 characteristics you can read at
http://www.opensource.org

3. These 9 describe more the pratical effects of those 4 freedoms, but
the OSI has sanctioned a license (a previous version of APSL) which had
characteristics that made it unacceptable as far as the 4 Freedoms go,
so there's evidence that even though most of the time they talk about
the same things, sometimes they don't.

I value those 4 Freedoms and all the pratical consequences they bring
(those usually flaunted by others as the main thing), and DJB doesn't
values his user's freedoms.

> Just because it does not come with a license does not make any less so.

If it doesn't come with a license, then its even worse. According to
most copyright laws in the world no one but the author has an authorized
copy. Obviously, you missed something.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040104/11f2b497/attachment-0001.sig>