On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:19:56AM -0700, Patrick R. Wade wrote:
> >>
> >I would call it Closed Binary. It can't be redistributed in binary
> >form if it does not operate exactly as it was designed to. So to
> >distribute it in binary form, linux/unix distributions would have to
> >use /service, and /service can't be a symlink. At least that's my
> >understanding of the issue.
>
> I probably should have said Unfree Software; i was thinking both of this
> restriction, and on the restrictions against distribution with downstream
> source modifications.
>
Of course, on systems that are already set up to deal with odd licenses
by downloading the official source and applying patches and building
locally, what difference does it make? There's no restriction on making
patches available.
And for you debheads out there, there's djbdns and daemontools installer
.debs in sid. You'll need gcc, of course :) And since you're building
locally, you won't have to pull down a lot of "unstable" .debs to use
it on a potato.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
