Re: tlug: [sendmail-security@example.com: Sendmail Workaround for Linux Capabilities Bug]

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Cozens <simon@example.com> writes:

    Simon> Stephen J. Turnbull (lists.tlug):
    >> Exactly.  djb's software is not open source.  Read the license,
    >> or the explanation that most sites point to in lieu of a
    >> license.

    Simon> Hm. Ah. I can't find a license, but I can find something
    Simon> that says "you can modify this but if you distribute
    Simon> modified copies of it, you can't call it qmail or you have
    Simon> to get DJB's approval."

First of all, IIRC, there was heated debate at the time over whether a
substantially weaker clause would disqualify Perl's Artistic License
from OSD compliance.

Second, I couldn't find that in anything that was written by djb.  At
least according to http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html, you are not
allowed to distribute modified copies.  You cannot distribute binaries
at all, except under conditions that I would consider unacceptably
restrictive (ie, leaving too many openings to get sued), and you may
not distribute modified sources.  Note that source cannot even be
modified to port to a new platform without djb's approval.  This is
not even close to the Artistic License.  And I didn't see anything at
all about changing the name.  Is that in the source?  If it is, I
couldn't find it.

http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html is the (presumably official) link,
directly off the www.qmail.org index page and written in the first
person by djb.  It's reasonably fresh (considering the type of
document, I wouldn't expect it to be modified very often), last
modified in February.

Third, since it's not a license, djb can change his mind and revoke it
anytime.  (He'd not be able to get damages for past use, I think, but
he can surely prevent future use.)  I'm sure he will not do so for
use and verbatim redistribution, but I have no reason to believe he
wouldn't for rather small source changes.

AFAIK there is _no public license_.  No public[1] license means not
OSD-compliant.  Period.  If you know of a public license, of course
that statement is inoperative.  I'd like to hear about it, too.  In
any case, in the discussion in dist.html, djb makes it abundantly
clear that this is not intended to be open source.

I believe the web[2] FAQ says that to distribute "modified sources," what you
must in fact do is distribute the originals with patch.  But this is
in a FAQ written by someone else, and maybe approved by djb at some
time.  Or not....  I wouldn't trust it.  I would certainly consider
the explicit, very restrictive, statements in dist.html more legally
reliable than anything in the FAQ.

Footnotes: 
[1]  Strictly speaking, I mean a "transitive license" which requires
the second party to grant the same rights to third parties.

[2]  The FAQ in the source says nothing about copying.

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Meeting (w/ YLUG): June 16 (Fri) 19:00 Mizonoguchi Marui Family 12F
Next Technical Meeting: July 8 (Sat)  13:30 Topic: TBA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
more info: http://www.tlug.gr.jp        Sponsor: Global Online Japan