"The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes
modify or patch or tune, as seen fit) IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for whatever purpose they desire"
Il a bien entendu oublié open, bsd/i, mac os, et les autres "embedded".
Vous pouvez mieux cerner le personnage, en cherchant par exemple, la raison pour la quelle IPFilter s'est arrêté sur la 2.0 de Linux ;-)
Aller plus loin
- Changement de licence (3 clics)
- The saga 2 (2 clics)
- The saga (2 clics)
# grrr
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à -1.
[^] # en français, on écrit salaud , pas "salop" !!!!!!!!!
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à -1.
[^] # Re: en français, on écrit salaud , pas "salop" !!!!!!!!!
Posté par earxtacy . Évalué à -1.
j'aime pas c 'est pas logique..
[^] # Re: en français, on écrit salaud , pas "salop" !!!!!!!
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
(un amour heureux, des amours heureuses!!)
[^] # un salaud est une salope !!!!!!!
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
http://www.francophonie.hachette-livre.fr/cgi-bin/sgmlex2?S.SCIP.SL(...)
et pour rire
http://www.jtosti.com/noms/s1.htm(...)
[^] # Re: en français, on écrit salaud , pas "salop" !!!!!!!
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
[^] # Re: en français, on écrit salaud , pas salop !!!!!!!
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
# flemme...
Posté par Wawet76 (site web personnel) . Évalué à 1.
> cherchant par exemple, la raison pour la quelle
> IPFilter s'est arrêté sur la 2.0 de Linux ;-)
Un ptit lien ?
--
# Un p'tite place
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
Il n'y a vraiment rien de mieux qu'une bonne GNU GPL.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par gabuzo . Évalué à -1.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
Pour pouvoir retourner leur veste ? Ambiguité par hasard ou pas ?
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par earxtacy . Évalué à 1.
"vkd" <vkd79@nospam.yahoo.com> writes:
> I really hope that a few angry words aren't going to be the deciding factor
> when it comes to such a good product.
Darren says so, however "angry words" are not what are at issue. What
is happening is this:
All the various licenses on ipf (there are a couple now) make it clear
that it is not Open Source (www.opensource.org) or Free Software (ask
the FSF). Go read the rules for yourself.
If source code does not permit _modification_ and _distribution_ by
any and all parties for any and all purposes, it is not completely
free.
Come on, go to www.opensource.org and read the rules!
And, if it not completely free, then it does not belong in any project
that claims to only include free code.
That includes all the BSD projects and also many Linux projects.
This isn't something new; it is just a mistake that was made. Other
things with similar licenses are being resolved now, for instance: tcp
wrappers (from Wietse), yacc test stuff, cron's popen.c file,
login_fbtab (from Wietse's logdaemon code), and md5 from RSA. All of
these have already been fixed now either by replacing the code or by
the authors changing the license. Others have to be fixed too: the
multicast daemon toolsets (Xerox, Stanford, USD), rpc.pcnfsd (Sun),
slstats and pppstats (LBL), pppd and ppp code (various copyright
holders), and parts of tcpdump and lex. It's going to be a lot of work.
But we make a promise that we try to release free code. I am sure
that most of the authors of the above packages had no idea that
modification has to be explicity granted for stuff to really be free
software; and like Wietse once they become aware they will react with
"Oh, of course I wanted it to be free, here is a new license that permits
modification".
Darren has chosen not to change his license to permit modification.
That is OK; it is HIS decision for a license on HIS work.
We are not forcing him at all. There's no point in talking to him
about this (and why would I want to, since he's all over various chat
forums doing character assasination of me and the OpenBSD project,
suggesting that we tried to "force" him).
> the reasons I even use BSD. But this is my opinion. Where do the project
> leaders see this issue going? Is Darren's license so unreasonable?
No, his license is completely reasonable. It's his software. He can
set his license to anything he wants. However, it conflicts with the
license on software that is included in OpenBSD. Hence, out of
respect for his wishes as written in his license, we are not permitted
by our Open Source/Free Software rules from including ipf in the
future.
> Is it
> different from the copyright held by Theo on the layout of the cd?
Outside of what copyright law says, this is very different. The
copyright on the CD is on layout and paid-for artwork. The intent of
using copyright law to retain ownership varies from work to work: In
our case, this is to discourage other vendors from simply taking our
layout efforts which we go through every 6 months, and distributing
CDs using that layout; our project needs to see money from our
product. We need that money. It ensures that we keep doing that. We
make stuff available on the FTP sites. (What do YOU give me for free?)
> Can't
> this thing just be resolved amicably so both parties are happy? I am sure
> IPFilter is a very popular package and not everyone would be happy to see it
> go!
It cannot be resolved. It is not our right to bother Darren with
pleas or other comments as to his license. I suppose you people can,
since it bothers you. It doesn't bother us: we had no option, since
the rules are clear.
We either had to remove ipf, or we had to remove comments on our web
pages which say that we "try to provide an operating system that
anyone can use for any and all purposes".
Which would you rather we remove?
If you don't understand why the level of freedom that we are striving
for is important, perhaps ask yourself why 99.9% of our source tree
has licenses that permit anyone to do anything; and only 0.1% doesn't,
and these are now either being repaired or replaced. This isn't just
me -- our entire development community believes in the importance of
this. This freedom came out of the University of California CSRG, and
it is the foundation that permitted us to take the original code from
4.4BSD and start working on it; It is also the foundation which
permits companies like NFR to take OpenBSD and build it into a product
without having to hire a cadre of laywers "asking for permission"
component by component. If you don't understand that, then fine --
this fanatical level of freedom is something that we (CSRG, and now
the *BSD projects) been striving for for almost 15 years. Accept it.
Recently Darren has said this in mail:
> The licence is intended to mean that people can use (which includes modify
> or patch or tune, as seen fit) IPFilter as found within FreeBSD/NetBSD for
> whatever purpose they desire - so long as the conditions (due credit and the
> notice) are met.
I want to reiterate that this is not an Open Source or Free Software
compatible license. It specifically says who the software is free
for; it does not say that it is free for anyone and everyone.
Have you gone to www.opensource.org yet and carefully read the rules
for Open Source?
Don't believe me? Ask Eric Raymond, or Richard Stallman.
I don't think I will comment on this again; because it is pretty
boring and taken care of. I have other stuff to do that is far more
interesting.
--
This space not left unintentionally unblank. deraadt@openbsd.org
Open Source means some restrictions apply, limits are placed, often quite
severe. Free Software has _no_ serious restrictions. OpenBSD is Free Software.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par Denis Barbier . Évalué à 1.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
Pour ceux qui ne l'aurait pas déjà lu 250000 fois ipf n'a jamais été sous une licence libre puisqu'il n'a jamais été permis de distribué une version modifiée.
Je ne suis pas sûr non plus que le fait de distribuer un logiciel en GPL interdise à l'auteur de celui-ci de changer de license à un instant donné. Bien sûr cela n'affectera pas les versions précédentes mais je pense que cela peut s'appliquer aux versions après le changement.
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
La nouvelle version utilisera des morceaux de l'ancienne version GPL, a ce moment la cette nouvelle version devient GPL...
A moins de reecrire tout le code differemment, c'est pas trop possible...
[^] # Re: Un p'tite place
Posté par oliv . Évalué à 1.
Preuve s'il en est, IglooFTP est passé il y a un an de GPL à une autre licence. Va jeter un oeil du côté des archives des liste Debian de cette époque pour voir ce qu'ils en ont dit.
http://www.geocrawler.com/archives/3/208/1999/7/0/2479511/(...)
QT est à la fois disponible en GPL et en licence QPL.
L'auteur décide de faire ce qu'il veut avec sa licence. Il ne peut pas interdire à quelqu'un d'utiliser le code de la version GPL, mais personne ne peut le forcer à continuer à utiliser la GPL car il est celui qui décide de la licence.
# Faites ce que je dis, pas ce que je fais...
Posté par Anonyme . Évalué à 0.
http://lists.gnac.net/firewalls/mhonarc/firewalls.199711/msg00058.h(...)
"I'm not sure that this puts Linux in a more favourable light. If he gets hit by a bus or is otherwise incapacitated for a length of time, are you saying that Linux would suffer as a result ?"
Et quand on lui pose maintenant la même question, voici sa réponse :
http://false.net/ipfilter/2001_05/0348.html(...)
">What will happen to ipfilter
>if you get hit by a bus?
I won't care, I'll finally get to RIP."
Amusant, non ?
Ch. Lauer - mailto:clauer@rebelz.net
Suivre le flux des commentaires
Note : les commentaires appartiennent à celles et ceux qui les ont postés. Nous n’en sommes pas responsables.