Vernon Schryver wrote:
After yet another go around with repackagers of the free version
of the DCC source who insist on break--er--improving it and then
distributing their version under my name, I'm thinking of changing
the license to say:
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software without
* changes for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided
* that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all
* copies and any distributed versions or copies are either unchanged
* or not called anything similar to "DCC" or "Distributed Checksum
* Clearinghouse".
What do you think?
That could be a problem for me. What do you mean by '(un)changed'? If it
excludes simple packaging, I will be unable to upgrade our servers.
We're using RedHat Linux as a corporate standard and we don't have
development tools installed on production systems. I have to at least
create RPM if I don't want to mess up with manually copying tar archives
of compiled bineries. Or to make a mess in a central RPM repository by
adding some weird package name instead of DCC.
I understand your frustration, but I think this approach would create a
confusion and at the end won't help anybody.
--
***********************************************************************
Pavel Urban (pavel.urban (at) o2.com)
O2 system disaster
Telefonica O2 Czech Republic, a.s. - www.cz.o2.com
***********************************************************************
Vegetables should not operate electronic equipment.
Computer Stupidities, http://rinkworks.com/stupid/
***********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
DCC mailing list [email protected]
http://www.rhyolite.com/mailman/listinfo/dcc
