[Bug 480724] Review Request: djbdns - A Domain Name System by D. J. Bernstein

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724





--- Comment #18 from Mark Johnson <johnsonm at gmail.com>  2009-03-05 16:34:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> The original public domain work is Public Domain. A modified, or derived work,
> can be under any license that the new author of the work wants. Since Public
> Domain is not a license, but the absence of a license (or if it helps you wrap
> your brain around it, the granting of all possible rights), it doesn't matter.

Say there exists a source code file within pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz that is
identical to version in DJB's djbdns-1.05.tar.gz available at
http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.tar.gz.  Are you saying that if that file is
obtained from pjp's djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz, the terms of the GPL apply if that
file, and only that file, are incorporated in a further derived work? 

> As to removing DJB's copyright notice, DJB did that. It would be nice to
> reference his message in which he took that action.  

DJB did not make this tarball available:

http://pjp.dgplug.org/djbdns/djbdns-1.05.1.tar.gz

which is a modified version his original djbdns-1.05 with a new README file
that does not have his original copyright statement (But does have a copy of
the GPL v3 in COPYING).  Since pjp did, I think it would be prudent to also
reference this URL and / or the statement found there relevant to djbdns in
future releases:

http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html

Otherwise, I think somebody could get the idea that DJB released djbdns under
the GPL, which is not the case.  Also, if the License is intended to be GPLv2+,
should COPYING really include v3?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.