I guess by making these packages available for download, the LEAF project's
various LRP variants are technically a distribution. We don't, however, have
anyone at the present time auditing the variety of packages now available
for LRP variants from a variety of sources on the web. Perhaps we need to
create a document stating what is and isn't acceptable as redistributable
package, I.E. only debian packages and their upgrades, etc. Personally I see
LRP as a great resource for allowing people to build thin servers to do
exactly what they need them to do, and as such I would like to make as many
of these kinds of tools available to people as possible.
Right now, and for the past few months included, LRP seems to be going
through a rather sudden growth spurt from where it's always been in the
past. There are several new developers taking LRP in exciting new
directions. However as more people begin using these various LRP
distributions, there are two primary concerns.
First is package compatibility. Obviously I want a .lrp package to work on
any lrp variant. I think that a new, more refined packaging scheme will
bring us even further in this direction, although it may break compatibility
with older systems. If forced to break compatibility, we will obviously want
to change the extension to something else at the same time.
Second is legality. As I've said no one is really auditing the various
packages. Most developers, myself included, often over look the various
license schemes that people distribute their software under, expecting it to
fall under the GNU/GPL or a BSD style license. I'm not sure what the
solution is for this beyond more attentive developers. Perhaps as I stated
earlier, we should come up with some developer documentation.
In any case, that's my two cents on the subject. Perhaps we need to do some
auditing and remove the packages that do not fit into the bounds of LRP,
either legally or because of incompatibility.
Andrew Hoying
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David
> Douthitt
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:36 AM
> To: LEAF Devel
> Subject: [Leaf-devel] Licensing (specifically, djb)
>
>
> With the addition of tcpserver and tcprules to the ever growing list of
> packages, I went and looked at their licensing (always of interest). I
> was dismayed to find out it was under the same licensing as the other
> djb tools (I didn't realize that these were one of them).
>
> According to his page http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html the licenses to
> distribute daemontools and ucspi-tcp expires on December 31, 2001 - so
> after that date we can no longer distribute the packages or programs
> from them.
>
> He also quotes Red Hat's Bernard Rosenkraenzer as saying (on April 16,
> 2001): "qmail and djbdns are not open source, so we aren't going to ship
> them unless the license changes."
>
> I'm not comfortable with his license, and I don't expect that any of
> these tools are contained in Debian either, what I consider to be the
> purest of "OpenSource" Linux distributions on the planet.
>
> Thoughts from you all? Jacques? Andrew?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leaf-devel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
