Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote: It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with thed. existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until otherwise stated by the developper. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc ]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote: It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with thed. existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until otherwise stated by the developper. That is utterly false. All of the licenses we use in the open source world (1) Do not permit removal of the license by a non-author (2) Do not permit modification of the license by a non-author. If a license does not permit you to do the above, then you can't do it, and that is EXACTLY how some people (including you) are attempting to incorrectly interpret dual licenses. Perhaps English is your second language, because my posting was very clear. Please read what I said again. You cannot modify a developer's license, and then distribute the file. That is the problem at hand. When an author declares (or, even, does not declare) Copyright, the get certain rights. Then they surrender some rights to their audience -- with or without conditions. If a right is not surrendered, you don't have it. If the license does not say you may distribute the file without the license, you can't. If the license does not say you may modify the license, you can't.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they?
Re: carp: intermittent master/backup swapping
On 2007/08/31 21:38, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: fe80::a00:20ff:fef9:a88d ff02::12: ip-proto-112 36 (len 36, hlim 255) this happens when you reconfigure IP addresses; workaround: ifconfig carpXX destroy; sh /etc/netstart carpXX. the fix is in rev 1.132.2.1 of http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/ip_carp.c the pf rules that are in place to allow carp traffic are pass quick on $carp_if proto carp my preference is 'no state' on things like carp and ospf. makes little difference for many setups, but if I don't always do it, I tend to forget it where I need it (e.g. where queues are involved).
Re: lenovo x61s bsd.mp Obsd 4.2 difficulties et al.
Just a side remark... Peter N. M. Hansteen wrote: The only remaining nit I have with my thinkpad is the still-flaky wpi firmware which is needed for the 3945ABG to work. It keeps nodding off at random intervals, longer intervals now than earlier, but still. this must be indeed a problem of the firmware; have a look at this: http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=47479 Cheers, Pau
ezmlm warning
Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. I'm working for my owner, who can be reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages to you from the net4offers mailing list seem to have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce message I received. If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces, I will remove your address from the net4offers mailing list, without further notice. I've kept a list of which messages from the net4offers mailing list have bounced from your address. Copies of these messages may be in the archive. To retrieve a set of messages 123-145 (a maximum of 100 per request), send an empty message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To receive a subject and author list for the last 100 or so messages, send an empty message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here are the message numbers: 1 --- Enclosed is a copy of the bounce message I received. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29168 invoked for bounce); 20 May 2007 10:03:50 - Date: 20 May 2007 10:03:50 - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=1179565840mail5.securedc.com18007295 Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail5.securedc.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. misc@openbsd.org: 192.43.244.163 failed on DATA command. Remote host said: 451 Temporary failure, please try again later. I'm not going to try again; this message has been in the queue too long.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Theo de Raadt wrote: For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license. BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally, but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the BSD License allows them to.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: [..] The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. And the license request you to preserve the license, thus if you do not preserve the license you are not complying with it. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, Sorry, but it really can't be stated clearer than: 8--- Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ---8 Which is what the ISC license contains, again, you need to preserve it to comply to the license. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. That code (most likely) still contains the license. A lot of times you will find it reproduced even in documentation, or in an acknowledgment. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal It is a license to use, but as long as you credit the original author. [..] BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Which part of: 8-- * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. --8 is unclear that that part needs to be kept intact? That part is more or less exactly the same as the ISC license btw. Also, if what you say above would be true, then a lot of people will be having a lot of fun with a lot of copyrighted works. Oh look a copyright, lets strip the license, the copyright is still there, so now smack our own license on it as that is what you state above. Suddenly all GPL software would become commercially available ;) BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? Maybe because Code != License? How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? Because the commercial developers don't claim it as their own. Try doing a grep for BSD on those binaries and you will find out that most likely the license is still intact. If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. The license does prohibit that. Weird that you missed out that part, it is not like the GPL license which is several pages long of legal nonsense. Some people like to code and provide that code to others so that those people can use it, without running the risk of getting sued when somebody peeps up using their code. They use BSD/ISC licenses. Some other people like to code something and let everybody use it and then let people pay for what they've done in returns for support costs these people use GPL viral licenses. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
YP server: i am desperated.
Dear gentleman, i have setted my NIS server using openbsd 4.1. In order to get things easier to manage, i decide the have a directory a part for my input file for nis database building process. So, i change the /var/yp/`domainname`/Makefile variables the point to the amd directory and etc directory from /etc/amd and /etc to /asd/etc/amd and /asd/etc. I have written and common input file for nis on those new directories, like hosts, netgroup, etc More specially, the master.passwd and group files. I have populated the last two too. When i issue make inside /var/yp/`domainname`. The databases are built ok, no problem. But things get strange, when i try to login into a client nis on my network. Although i have setted a password for a nis user in /asd/etc/master.passwd. That password is not allowed neither on the client not the server box. But if after typing the login, i hit return and return i am able to login without a password; what is the equivalent of a password of . Does anybody have any ideia where i am mistaken?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. You're entitled to say stupid things. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. Can't you read ? The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, Nope, read the license. It says you cannot touch the license, in plain words. No amount of weaseling will get you out of that. And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. [...] rest of rant deleted. But don't mind me. I wouldn't want *facts* to get in the way of your nice ideological diatribe.
Unable to connect to the the ISP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I recently installed OpenBSD 4.1 on my computer and tried to connect to my xDSL ISP via pppoe. The contents of my /etc/hostname.fxp0 are: dhcp The contents of /etc/ppp/ppp.conf are: default: set log Phase Chat LCP IPCP CCP tun command pppoe: set device !/usr/sbin/pppoe -i fxp0 set mtu max 1492 set mru max 1492 set speed sync disable acfcomp protocomp deny acfcomp set authname myUsername set authkey myPassword The error message I get involves something about IPv6 format, but I'm sure that my ISP knows nothing about IPv6. Therefore, I have two questions: 1. How do I disable IPv6? 2. Does anyone know how I can overcome this problem and connect to the internet? Thanks, Amit. Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG2WpPEzurR/yozRMRAjy2AJ9g2KJgcox0u/OyiXbS262dNK8wjwCfQeV5 /pGyaBXFJgp/jOlJX7W+krM= =zr0l -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Wrong wrong wrong. You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is. You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience. I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now doesn't make it so. Try it and see what happens. Let me try once more to explain how this works. Here is the license of a piece of code I wrote: * Copyright (c) 2007 Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the * above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. This means if you want to use my code in any way shape or form you MUST maintain the copyright license. It says on ALL copies therefore this includes other code, binary files, source, GPL goo etc. The whole point is that one can't go around interpreting law. That's a judge's job. I am not interpreting any licenses for anybody, I am stating facts as they exist today in the frame of the law. Don't like that? I suggest suing someone to see if you can get a judge to agree with your interpretation; from there you can claim jurisprudence. On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. Wrong. Copyright includes ALL rights; the license is what surrenders some of these rights. Copyright is INCLUSIVE. In other words if if write my totally 1337 program that has NO license it automatically is completely covered by copyright. One can NOT copy it, can NOT modify it can NOT distribute it. It is the most restrictive license. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. Not likely; it is breaking the law. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. If you are not preserving the copyrights and the license in the file you are breaking the law. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal We can't help people living in alternate realities and making their own interpretations. It is wrong. Let me quote my license once more: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ I am the only one capable of giving up that right. The GPL crowd can't go around relicensing my code without violating this. I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. You mean the law? BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Let me try to point it out: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license. BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? Yes, read this part: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. It is crafted that way: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally, but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the BSD License
Re: Unable to connect to the the ISP
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Amit Finkler wrote: The contents of my /etc/hostname.fxp0 are: dhcp This should be just up. 1. How do I disable IPv6? You don't need to, I'm sure that's not the problem. Btw, I suggest you to try the kernel mode pppoe. It's really simple to set up and works like a charm. See pppoe(4). -- Antti Harri
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Theo de Raadt wrote: For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. You sure? That's a very slippery slope. Are you advising me to re-publich gcc tomorrow under a BSD license? Or with the GPL removed from it? It sure looks like the GPL says you can't remove the license, as well. Heck, it goes further -- the GPL says you must release software with the same rights you received it under. Go look. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, Look, you are oversimplifying things by a lot. The ISC license says a hell of a lot more than that. If we could simplify it to less than 3 lines, as you did above we would. But it is clear your 2 lines above don't explain what the ISC license requires and grants. You have mis-described the license. And, you have a backwards understanding of the law. Copyright law first gives me rights, then I even surrender some rights to the public. First I have rights, then I surrender rights. The ISC statement does not contain a statement which surrenders my right, as the author, to be the only one who modifies the license. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. Wrong. The commercial products, when distributed as source code, do still contain the licenses. Just go look at how Apple did it. Or Sun. Heck, or how many BSD licences still show up on files throughout the FSF's code distributions. Or find me one counter example of a vendor publishing BSD licensed source code with a license removed, and then getting away with it. ATT/USL did actually do this wrong when they published manual pages without showing the University of California copyright notice, and that did not end up well for them. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal It isn't that simple. When you oversimplify things, they are almost always wrong. What next... the license does not say you can murder babies, so you can? I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Wow, you don't get it. Here, let me give you a very simple lessons: (1) You author an original work. You distribute it without a Copyright notice. VOILA. Even without declaring copyright... You AUTOMATICALLY have copyright on it, with the full rights as the author. You have all the rights of copyright, and noone else does. Noone else can do anything with it. Really! Go read up on this, if you don't believe me. If you don't believe this, you better start by learning why it is so. (2) You author an original work. You distribute it with one line at the top: Copyright (c) 2006 name of author VOILA. You have copyright on it, since you declared it. You have all the rights of copyright, and noone else does. Noone else can do anything with it. It's the same as case (1) above. (3) You author an original work. You distribute it with with the following text at the top: Copyright (c) 2006 name of author You may use this software. Someone may use this software. However, just like in cases (1) and (2) above, you did not permit distribution. Copyright law automatically retains that right for you, until you decide otherwise to give it up. You don't even need to MENTION the rights you retain. You retain those rights until the moment you give them up. (5) You author an original work. You distribute it with the following text: Copyright (c) 2006 name of author Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. In this case, read very carefully. I removed the word modify from an ISC license. Guess what? COPYRIGHT LAW gave the author the right to control modification, and they did not surrender it in their notice. Therefore, someone who receives this
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, That is entirely false. If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file. The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence). If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a legal document after the document is already signed and approved. There are simpler reasons to not remove licenses statements, as will become clear in a moment: Here's a pop question: Which of these two licences grants more rights? a. Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt. b. Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt You may use or distribute this file without modifications. The answer is b. The first licence grants NO RIGHTS AT ALL, and retains them all for the author! David, I truly recommend you go study at least a few minutes of copyright law, heck, even at wikipedia if you are short on time.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they? should, or must? must. Another argument has popped up elsewhere (by some poster, on kerneltrap.org), pointing out that the GPL itself may also require dual-licensed software to remain dual-licensed. The implication is that a recipient read both licenses, and then CHOSE the GPL, the GPL would then them to pass on the choice they had to whoever they distributed it to. Yes, you get to see me quote a paragraph from the GPL. Just this once. Never again. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. More can be found at kerneltrap.
Re: Unable to connect to the the ISP
On 2007/09/01 16:34, Amit Finkler wrote: The error message I get involves something about IPv6 format something about IPv6 format? you can do better than that. copy-and-paste.
Re: Unable to connect to the the ISP
2007/9/1, Amit Finkler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 1. How do I disable IPv6? disable ipv6cp ppp(8) tells you more. Best Martin PS: Read http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Re: carp: intermittent master/backup swapping
Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2007/08/31 21:38, Jacob Yocom-Piatt wrote: fe80::a00:20ff:fef9:a88d ff02::12: ip-proto-112 36 (len 36, hlim 255) this happens when you reconfigure IP addresses; workaround: ifconfig carpXX destroy; sh /etc/netstart carpXX. the fix is in rev 1.132.2.1 of http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/netinet/ip_carp.c tried this and AFAICT, it has fixed the issue. thanks stuart! since i'd rather not wait 2 months for this fix to show up in 4.2-release, is it possible to patch ip_carp.c up to get this fix in and recompile the kernel? guess it shouldn't matter once i have everything in a static configuration... the pf rules that are in place to allow carp traffic are pass quick on $carp_if proto carp my preference is 'no state' on things like carp and ospf. makes little difference for many setups, but if I don't always do it, I tend to forget it where I need it (e.g. where queues are involved). sounds like good advice, especially on state free protocols.
Re: Microsoft gets the Most Secure Operating Systems award
On 3/23/07 2:53 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote: Symantec have been trying to demonise OS X for a long while. And it is going to work soon. Because OS X has no Propolice-like compiler stack protection, nor anything like W^X which makes parts of the address space non-executable, nor anything like address space randomization which makes certain attacks very difficult, especially with the previous two techniques. So when they have a bug, it is exploitable just like bugs are on any other powerpc or i386 machine running some other operating system. These days even operating systems like Vista have the above 3 security technologies. First of all, bugs and viruses are two different things. Second, OS X does not need third-party protection. All of the protection is built into the OS! If Vista is so secure, then why does one need to download virus/spyware protection when it can simply be built into the OS? -The One
Re: Unable to connect to the the ISP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2007/09/01 16:34, Amit Finkler wrote: The error message I get involves something about IPv6 format something about IPv6 format? you can do better than that. copy-and-paste. Antti Harri wrote: On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Amit Finkler wrote: The contents of my /etc/hostname.fxp0 are: dhcp This should be just up. 1. How do I disable IPv6? You don't need to, I'm sure that's not the problem. Btw, I suggest you to try the kernel mode pppoe. It's really simple to set up and works like a charm. See pppoe(4). OK, so I configured /etc/hostname.pppoe0 as described in pppoe(4): # The following line is all in one line inet 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 NONE pppoedev fxp0 authproto pap authname 'myUsername' authkey 'myPassword' up dest 0.0.0.1 !/sbin/route add default 0.0.0.1 and the corresponding ifconfig output is: lo0: flags=8049UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST mtu 33224 groups: lo inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5 rl0: flags=8802BROADCAST,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 lladdr 00:0a:cd:10:2b:c5 media: Ethernet autoselect status: active fxp0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 lladdr 00:0d:61:03:77:63 groups: egress media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active inet6 fe80::20d:61ff:fe03:7763%fxp0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 inet 10.0.0.2 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 10.255.255.255 pflog0: flags=0 mtu 33224 enc0: flags=0 mtu 1536 pppoe0: flags=8810POINTOPOINT,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1492 dev: fxp0 state: initial sid: 0x0 PADI retries: 0 PADR retries: 0 groups: pppoe inet6 fe80::20a:cdff:fe10:2bc5%pppoe0 - prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6 inet 0.0.0.0 -- 0.0.0.0 netmask 0x So I got rid of the nagging IPv6 message (nevermind what that was) but I still can't manage to connect. Amit. Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG2YCSEzurR/yozRMRAtBuAJ9Ytf4hwV/+RBnk/HkzzIspRLWYbgCfcMUH L0PatuQ/3xsXlE+TeNJ3Fq4= =WO8M -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Unable to connect to the the ISP
On 2007/09/01 18:09, Amit Finkler wrote: pppoe0: flags=8810POINTOPOINT,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1492 I don't know why, but this interface is not up.
DNS server setup for multiple domains
Greetings, Need advise how to setup one DNS server for multiple domain names, like: abcd._com_.xy, abcd._net_.xy, abcd._org_.xy, and abcd._biz_.xy The name server FQDN is server1.abcd._com_.xy (first domain) but, how to name the server in the SOA record for the rest of the domains? Regards, Mufurcz
NIS: how to fetch input files from another directory than /etc (please, i am desperated)
Dear gentleman, i am trying to get nis to build their maps from files located in another directory than /etc. So, my Makefile (inside /var/yp/`domainname`) has the following lines : YPDBDIR=/var/yp DIR=/asd/etc AMDDIR=/asd/etc/amd NOPUSH= UNSECURE= USEDNS=-b So my ideia is to grab as input, passwd and group files from /asd/etc; all others are empty. My group file inside /asd/etc is: its:*:1000: asd:*:1001:sioux dba:*:1002:sioux wbx:*:1003: alg:*:1004:sioux djb:*:1005: nofiles:*:1006: qmail:*:1007: ftp:*:1008: ord:*:2000: adc:*:2001: bod:*:2002: frn:*:2003: And my master.passwd is: sioux:$2a$08$B8PLPgdw18I.TlnZC8RnZezg1Ed8gQL8WU/4rpxdyGdOk/PO/9Ude:1000:1000:mojave:0:0::/home/sioux:/bin/sh mysql:*:1001:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false oldap:*:1002:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/oldap:/usr/bin/false dnscache:*:1003:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnscache:/usr/bin/false dnslog:*:1004:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnslog:/usr/bin/false tinydns:*:1005:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/tinydns:/usr/bin/false ftp:*:1006:1008:mojave:0:0::/asd/var/ftp:/sbin/nologin alias:*:1007:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail/alias:/usr/bin/true qmaild:*:1008:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmaill:*:1009:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailp:*:1010:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailq:*:1011:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailr:*:1012:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmails:*:1013:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true Then i issued : # pwd_mkdb -d /asd/etc -s master.passwd # cd /var/yp/`domainname` # make Everything was built ok! But, the problem is the following: I cannot login as user sioux using the password i setted for it. But if i try the login as user sioux using a empty password () the authentication procedure passes. I can't understand what i am doing wrong? thanks a lot for your time and cooperation. Best regards.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi, In order to make my mind about this subject... You're complaining solely of the changes in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h But not in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Right? To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he shouldn't. In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. But it is incorrect in my point of view to have done so on the former 5 files. I hope it's those 5 files everyone is crying foul about... Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: NIS: how to fetch input files from another directory than /etc (please, i am desperated)
Do you have any understanding of YP? You tell us that it builds ok. Is that all debugging you have done? Have you verified that you get the correct entry for sioux from master.passwd? ypmatch from root can be used to test that... ypcat and ypwhich is other tools you can use to debug... makedbm -u can be used to look at the compiled maps. -moj On Sat, 1 Sep 2007, Gustavo Rios wrote: Dear gentleman, i am trying to get nis to build their maps from files located in another directory than /etc. So, my Makefile (inside /var/yp/`domainname`) has the following lines : YPDBDIR=/var/yp DIR=/asd/etc AMDDIR=/asd/etc/amd NOPUSH= UNSECURE= USEDNS=-b So my ideia is to grab as input, passwd and group files from /asd/etc; all others are empty. My group file inside /asd/etc is: its:*:1000: asd:*:1001:sioux dba:*:1002:sioux wbx:*:1003: alg:*:1004:sioux djb:*:1005: nofiles:*:1006: qmail:*:1007: ftp:*:1008: ord:*:2000: adc:*:2001: bod:*:2002: frn:*:2003: And my master.passwd is: sioux:$2a$08$B8PLPgdw18I.TlnZC8RnZezg1Ed8gQL8WU/4rpxdyGdOk/PO/9Ude:1000:1000:mojave:0:0::/home/sioux:/bin/sh mysql:*:1001:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false oldap:*:1002:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/oldap:/usr/bin/false dnscache:*:1003:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnscache:/usr/bin/false dnslog:*:1004:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnslog:/usr/bin/false tinydns:*:1005:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/tinydns:/usr/bin/false ftp:*:1006:1008:mojave:0:0::/asd/var/ftp:/sbin/nologin alias:*:1007:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail/alias:/usr/bin/true qmaild:*:1008:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmaill:*:1009:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailp:*:1010:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailq:*:1011:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailr:*:1012:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmails:*:1013:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true Then i issued : # pwd_mkdb -d /asd/etc -s master.passwd # cd /var/yp/`domainname` # make Everything was built ok! But, the problem is the following: I cannot login as user sioux using the password i setted for it. But if i try the login as user sioux using a empty password () the authentication procedure passes. I can't understand what i am doing wrong? thanks a lot for your time and cooperation. Best regards.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself.
Re: More on the Atheros driver situation
* Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070901 10:45]: Well, it looks like the Linux wireless people have decided that their relatively small modifications to the Atheros driver will be GPL'd, and not given back to improve the driver in the *BSD world. If code is released under copyright. be it BSD, or GPL, and someone other than the author(s) changes the license, can the person(s) who(m) made the changes seriously expect that somebody else cannot take that code under the terms of the original license, or some other license _they_ prefer and do the same? If I sound confused, it's probably because I am. :-\ -- W. Steven Schneider [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FFBBII are poisoning suspect's pets
The hypocrisy of the FFBBII is quite astounding, that they can get away with poisoning my dog... Taking ones frustration out on a dog, is more insidious than the other guys that poison people, considering that a dog is purely innocent and defenseless. It is time that the FFBBII start applying the same standards that other American citizens have to live up to, to them selves. - Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
Re: More on the Atheros driver situation
On 9/1/07, Steven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If code is released under copyright. be it BSD, or GPL, and someone other than the author(s) changes the license, can the person(s) who(m) made the changes seriously expect that somebody else cannot take that code under the terms of the original license, or some other license _they_ prefer and do the same? Someone other than the authors _cannot_ change the license. Neither of these licenses grants anyone rights to change or remove licenses of the distributed code. In fact, they explicitly state that the license (and copyright) must stay intact. (New material can have a new license clause appended to it, but that is completely different than what you're talking about.) This whole escapade would be a lot simpler if people would stop relying on guesswork and assumptions for matters they do not understand. For most matters like these in the real world, the preferred behavior is to clam up until you study and understand it, and then engage in commentary. Read Theo's earlier email on the matter. He explains it quite well. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118861134304239w=2 DS
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. One of the really fascinating aspects of this whole thing, at least to someone with a classic liberal arts education, is how poorly technical people often perform when faced with natural language text. Not all of them, obviously, but it's amazing how often it happens, even with people whose high intelligence is indisputable. You see the full panoply of logical fallacy at work. They try to do things they would never try with technical specs. For example, you may choose a license for distribution. There seems to be an overpowering urge among some to read this as you may may choose a license for removal. This is an obvious non sequitur. The reasoning seems to be something like premise a: you may choose BSD or GPL premise b: you may distribute under your chosen license conclusion: therefore you may distribute without the other license Fallacy of Equivocation: use of a term with two or more meanings, as in, using distribute to mean alter, or taking choose A to mean remove B. Fallacy of Illicit Process: a term in the conclusion has a wider extension than in the predicate (i.e. going from some lawyers are cheats to all lawyers are X); this non sequitur doesn't quite fit the definition, but it does involve similar chicanery, going from choose A to choose A and remove B. I'm sure this bit of faulty reasoning commits a few other fallacies as well. In any case, it's amazing how many technical people are willing to take OR as a synonym for EXCLUSIVE OR. The only way this will get clarity in the end is in the courts. In this case, the people pulling these shenanigans - possibly including the FSF - richly deserve the RIAA treatment. Maybe the foundation should create a fund for defending the license.(And I'm not even religious about this stuff - it just really irks may that these people pontificating about freedom are willing to behave so selfishly and disingenuously. And illegally.) -gregg
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
First, I wish to appologize. While I am actually fairly familiar with the GPL, I am not intimate with either the various forms of BSD License or the ISC. Somehow jumping back and forth between them all on wikipedia before my original post I missed the clause that appears to be in each of them require preserving the License/Permissions as well as the copyright. I made an honest effort to look, and somehow read right through exactly what I was looking for. I went back over the ISC a second time before posting, but I read what I was expecting to see, not exactly what was writing. That fairly well obliterates the main point I was attempting to make. But many of the other issues are still valid. The argument that you start with copyright and then add or subtract based on the license is correct. But you can not expect copyright law to return, rights you cede in your license. Yes, a License is a legal document, and MOST legal documents are immutable, but generalization is not the same as law. The ISC and BSD Licenses are immutable, because although they cede alot, they do preserve that. They are not immutable, because all legal documents are inherently immutable.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, That is entirely false. Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish - except remove the copyright. If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file. You can do whatever either copyright law or the license allows you to do. The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence). That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that requires preserving the license. In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove the copyright, The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style licenses has been over pretty much this point. FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT convert GPL'd code to proprietary code. BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be Totally Free - specifically because you can convert the code to proprietary code. If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do not need any license at all. Just a simple copyright notice will do. Pretty much by definition when you have a software license it is because you are trying to remove yourself from some constraint of copyright law - whether you are trying to further bind the user, or you are trying to release them. If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a legal document after the document is already signed and approved. Unless the license allows you to do that. That is a cost to granting others Total Freedom If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to atleast some extend you have modifed your rights with respect to copyright. Both the GPL and ISC cede vast amounts of copyright protections. You have to be extremely careful arguing copyright law with any licensed work, because ontly those parts of copyright law that the licensed has not ceded, or can not be waived remain. The legal document argument is week. The closest legal document analogy I can think of would be granting someone else the right to act as your agent - as in a power of attorney. And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control your affairs..
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Siju George wrote: Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ which strings /usr/bin/strings See strings(1) :-) -- Antti Harri
Re: redirecting output to a file in the remote machine while executing command on the remote machine using ssh
On 8/31/07, Heinrich Rebehn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $ ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] 'remote_command remote_logfile' Note the single ticks, without them redirection is done by the local shell. --Heinrich Thank you so much Antti and Heinrich and to all who replied off list :-) Kind Regards Siju
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
'strings' is a common Unix utility used to find actual words or series of letters grouped together in a file. You can run strings in binary executable files to see any text embedded in the executable. This can sometimes be used to find versions of some executables as well as for other reasons (forensics ?).
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? strings(1) - print the strings of printable characters in files Pull down many of the Windows command line utilities to your Unix host (particularly those that share similar names with the Unix commands) and run strings against them. Pay attention to the strings referencing the University, CSRG, etc. Also: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20030927090008 DS
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Siju George wrote: On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? man strings :-) /Alexander
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/1/07 12:29 PM, Siju George wrote: On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? man 1 strings The strings utility finds the printable strings in a object, or other binary, file. example: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 505$ strings /bin/ls | grep -i copyright @(#) Copyright (c) 1989, 1993, 1994 dn iD8DBQFG2cfNyPxGVjntI4IRAtiTAKDUtUkdvgknGf1xBhzV3h8wfWuEkACgsHDc unCO9OHA5cuqLdo3cujTY6M= =IB6u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:59:39AM +0530, Siju George wrote:
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
The usual explanation is man strings. But for example:
*--*
artemis:~
{20} % strings /dev/fs/C/WINDOWS/system32/nslookup.exe | tail -n 30
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
@(#)nslookup.c 5.39 (Berkeley) 6/24/90
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
@(#)commands.l 5.13 (Berkeley) 7/24/90
-*-**
**
**
@(#)debug.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
@(#)list.c 5.20 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
@(#)subr.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
@(#)skip.c 5.9 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
@(#)getinfo.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
@(#)send.c 5.17 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
!#$%'()*+,-./0123456789:;=[EMAIL PROTECTED]|}~
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/
0123456789abcdef.
QISKNU?
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcp\VParameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcp\Parameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Transient
\Registry\Machine\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows NT\DNSClient
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@DDD@
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
DDD@
,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
b
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
artemis:~
{21} %
*--*
This is on Windows XP, using the strings from Microsoft Services for
UNIX.
Re: FFBBeye are poisoning suspect's pets
In this country (US) we have something called the first amendment. It is a guarantee that individual American citizens will not be punished when disclosing abuses by the government. Is what I am disclosing so unbelievable, especially considering far more series past abuses. You are either a corrupt-piece-of-shit or seriously naive. Nick Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/1/07, james dandey wrote: The hypocrisy of the FFBBII is quite astounding, that they can get away with poisoning my dog... Taking ones frustration out on a dog, is more insidious than the other guys that poison people, considering that a dog is purely innocent and defenseless. It is time that the FFBBII start applying the same standards that other American citizens have to live up to, to them selves. - Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. What? Presumably you sent this to the wrong list by accident.. but also what? http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0408/msg02073.html just sounds irritated before this, but after read this now you just sound paranoid. OpenBSD is for sane people. Well, actually it's for everyone. But we push for sanity.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
they preserved the copyrights as required.
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
tvc: {2476} strings `where ftp` | grep -A1 -i copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
tvc: {2477}
That's on OpenBSD. On Windows, you can presumably get strings(1) as a
part of the Cygwin package, or try out Windows Services for UNIX.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20030927090008
C.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish - except remove the copyright. ISC has no say in the matter of interpreting the legal document. Authors put them onto files hoping the license lays down the rights they wish to retain, and grants they wish to give to the public. Then courts interpret COPYRIGHT LAW FIRST, then what the author's license grant really says. ISC does not enter into the picture, except as they were the first to craft the legal document in that way. In fact, the ISC-style license that OpenBSD uses is... a tiny bit different. In fact, the ISC license has gone through a variety of mutations over the decades. It is an attempt to be a shorter easier to understand version of the 2-term BSD license (but it is apparent many people still can't understand that copyright notices have an implied and invisible full copyright act before them). That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that requires preserving the license. Copyright law does. When you are holding a gun to my head, there is no piece of paper in front of my head saying you can't fire the gun. Do I really need to start giving grade school examples?? In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove the copyright, Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law, a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is pulled in the MOMENT a Copyright (c) YYMM author decleration is made. The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style licenses has been over pretty much this point. No, it has not, because you are completely wrong! FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT convert GPL'd code to proprietary code. BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be Totally Free - specifically because you can convert the code to proprietary code. Nothing is that simple -- or all these licenses would be exactly that text you print, but they are quite clearly not, and have many many words there for a reason. AND they carry the full weight of Copyright law in with them as well. If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do not need any license at all. Just a simple copyright notice will do. Pretty much by definition when you have a software license it is because you are trying to remove yourself from some constraint of copyright law - whether you are trying to further bind the user, or you are trying to release them. If you have a copyright notice with a license that grants SOME rights, you retain all the other rights granted in the full copyright acts of your nation (and other nations, details, details..) If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a legal document after the document is already signed and approved. Unless the license allows you to do that. That is a cost to granting others Total Freedom There is only one 'Total Freedom', and it is a Public Domain declaration, which these licenses are not. These are full Copyright Act licenses, carrying the full of power of the Copyright, and only THEN the addition author's release surrenders some rights he has. If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to atleast some extend you have modifed your rights with respect to copyright. Both the GPL and ISC cede vast amounts of copyright protections. You have to be extremely careful arguing copyright law with any licensed work, because ontly those parts of copyright law that the licensed has not ceded, or can not be waived remain. The legal document argument is week. The closest legal document analogy I can think of would be granting someone else the right to act as your agent - as in a power of attorney. And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control your affairs.. Wow. You are so full of balony. Get an education, please.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 00:42 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [responding to Dmitrij Czarkoff:] So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until otherwise stated by the developper. That is utterly false. All of the licenses we use in the open source world (1) Do not permit removal of the license by a non-author (2) Do not permit modification of the license by a non-author. I would say this is probably true of any license anywhere. To be honest, though, the philosophy is actually a lot closer to the free software movement started by Richard Stallman than the open source movement later splintered off by whoever it was (Eric Raymond maybe?). The main difference seperating us (the BSD-derived OS camp) from the GNU(/Linux) camp is the differing social goals we are after. I, of course, consider myself closer to the GNU camp, but have no problem contributing to a BSD-licensed project under that license. Not that my programming skills are yet back up to snuff to do so, but that's a rant for another day and thread... -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DNS server setup for multiple domains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/31/07 9:15 PM, mufurcz wrote:
Greetings,
Need advise how to setup one DNS server for multiple domain
names, like: abcd._com_.xy, abcd._net_.xy, abcd._org_.xy, and
abcd._biz_.xy
The name server FQDN is server1.abcd._com_.xy (first domain)
but, how to name the server in the SOA record for the rest
of the domains?
1. Add more zones for your new domains in your named.conf file.
Here's a bind 9 example:
zone abcd.com.xy in {
type master;
file /etc/namedb/master/db.abcd.com.xy;
allow-query { any; };
allow-transfer { xfer; };
};
zone 2.1.666.in-addr.arpa in {
type master;
file /etc/namedb/master/db.666.1.2;
allow-query { any; };
allow-transfer { xfer; };
};
zone abcd.net.xy in {
type master;
file /etc/namedb/master/db.abcd.net.xy;
allow-query { any; };
allow-transfer { xfer; };
};
zone abcd.org.xy in {
type master;
file /etc/namedb/master/db.abcd.org.xy;
allow-query { any; };
allow-transfer { xfer; };
};
2. Create new zone files for each zone. They'll look just like your
abcd.com.xy zone file except SOA and other references to com should
instead read net or org or whatever. (You may want to keep the
hostmaster's email address in the .com domain; that's up to you.)
3. Run rndc reload or restart your nameserver.
Comments:
a. Set up only one reverse zone. An IP address should reverse-resolve to
exactly one hostname.
b. You must be authoritative for the domains and network addresses,
respectively, for the new domains and reverse lookups to work. That's
between you, your registrar (for the domains), and your ISP(s) (for the
IP addresses).
c. DNS Bind by Albitz and Liu is still THE reference on DNS. Highly
recommended.
dn
iD8DBQFG2cy4yPxGVjntI4IRAmN+AKCPhXbVEg/gEZ8oy1nUl5lrOq4MWQCfSVQt
LAW87qfpMPGAqm8v+SgWuBs=
=iZGy
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Constantine A. Murenin wrote: That is entirely false. Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish - except remove the copyright. ... but I do not see anything in the license that requires preserving the license. In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove the copyright. Your reading comprehension seems to be suffering. I would *love* to know how you read this statement: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. ...and then come to the conclusion that the only restriction it names on copying, modification, and distribution is that the copyright alone must remain. The statement provided that the above copyright notice *and this permission notice* appear in all copies seems to speak pretty clearly, does it not? A = copyright notice B = permission notice A != A+B DS
Re: NIS: how to fetch input files from another directory than /etc (please, i am desperated)
Let's go for a detailed report: My files are: lion# cat /asd/etc/master.passwd sioux:$2a$08$B8PLPgdw18I.TlnZC8RnZezg1Ed8gQL8WU/4rpxdyGdOk/PO/9Ude:1000:1000:mojave:0:0::/home/sioux:/bin/sh mysql:*:1001:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false oldap:*:1002:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/oldap:/usr/bin/false dnscache:*:1003:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnscache:/usr/bin/false dnslog:*:1004:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnslog:/usr/bin/false tinydns:*:1005:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/tinydns:/usr/bin/false ftp:*:1006:1008:mojave:0:0::/asd/var/ftp:/sbin/nologin alias:*:1007:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail/alias:/usr/bin/true qmaild:*:1008:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmaill:*:1009:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailp:*:1010:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailq:*:1011:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailr:*:1012:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmails:*:1013:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true grios:*:2002:2000:ordinary:0:0::/home/grios:/bin/sh lion# cat /asd/etc/passwd sioux:*:1000:1000::/home/sioux:/bin/sh mysql:*:1001:1002::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false oldap:*:1002:1002::/home/oldap:/usr/bin/false dnscache:*:1003:1005::/home/dnscache:/usr/bin/false dnslog:*:1004:1005::/home/dnslog:/usr/bin/false tinydns:*:1005:1005::/home/tinydns:/usr/bin/false ftp:*:1006:1008::/asd/var/ftp:/sbin/nologin alias:*:1007:1006::/var/qmail/alias:/usr/bin/true qmaild:*:1008:1006::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmaill:*:1009:1006::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailp:*:1010:1006::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailq:*:1011:1007::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailr:*:1012:1007::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmails:*:1013:1007::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true grios:*:2002:2000::/home/grios:/bin/sh lion# ypcat passwd alias:*:1007:1006::/var/qmail/alias:/usr/bin/true dnscache:*:1003:1005::/home/dnscache:/usr/bin/false dnslog:*:1004:1005::/home/dnslog:/usr/bin/false ftp:*:1006:1008::/asd/var/ftp:/sbin/nologin grios:*:2002:2000::/home/grios:/bin/sh mysql:*:1001:1002::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false oldap:*:1002:1002::/home/oldap:/usr/bin/false qmaild:*:1008:1006::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmaill:*:1009:1006::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailp:*:1010:1006::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailq:*:1011:1007::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailr:*:1012:1007::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmails:*:1013:1007::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true sioux:*:1000:1000::/home/sioux:/bin/sh tinydns:*:1005:1005::/home/tinydns:/usr/bin/false lion# ypcat master.passwd alias:*:1007:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail/alias:/usr/bin/true dnscache:*:1003:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnscache:/usr/bin/false dnslog:*:1004:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnslog:/usr/bin/false ftp:*:1006:1008:mojave:0:0::/asd/var/ftp:/sbin/nologin grios:*:2002:2000:ordinary:0:0::/home/grios:/bin/sh mysql:*:1001:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false oldap:*:1002:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/oldap:/usr/bin/false qmaild:*:1008:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmaill:*:1009:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailp:*:1010:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailq:*:1011:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailr:*:1012:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmails:*:1013:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true sioux:$2a$08$B8PLPgdw18I.TlnZC8RnZezg1Ed8gQL8WU/4rpxdyGdOk/PO/9Ude:1000:1000:mojave:0:0::/home/sioux:/bin/sh tinydns:*:1005:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/tinydns:/usr/bin/false lion# ypwhich -x Use passwd for passwd.byname Use group for group.byname Use networks for networks.byaddr Use hosts for hosts.byaddr Use protocols for protocols.bynumber Use services for services.byname Use aliases for mail.aliases Use ethers for ethers.byname lion# ypwhich localhost.my.domain lion# makedbm -u master.passwd.byname YP_LAST_MODIFIED 1188681297 YP_MASTER_NAME lion.my.domain YP_SECURE alias alias:*:1007:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail/alias:/usr/bin/true dnscache dnscache:*:1003:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnscache:/usr/bin/false dnslog dnslog:*:1004:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/dnslog:/usr/bin/false ftp ftp:*:1006:1008:mojave:0:0::/asd/var/ftp:/sbin/nologin grios grios:*:2002:2000:ordinary:0:0::/home/grios:/bin/sh mysql mysql:*:1001:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false oldap oldap:*:1002:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/oldap:/usr/bin/false qmaild qmaild:*:1008:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmaill qmaill:*:1009:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailp qmailp:*:1010:1006:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailq qmailq:*:1011:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmailr qmailr:*:1012:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true qmails qmails:*:1013:1007:mojave:0:0::/var/qmail:/usr/bin/true sioux sioux:$2a$08$B8PLPgdw18I.TlnZC8RnZezg1Ed8gQL8WU/4rpxdyGdOk/PO/9Ude:1000:1000:mojave:0:0::/home/sioux:/bin/sh tinydns tinydns:*:1005:1005:mojave:0:0::/home/tinydns:/usr/bin/false lion# makedbm -u master.passwd.byuid 1000 sioux:$2a$08$B8PLPgdw18I.TlnZC8RnZezg1Ed8gQL8WU/4rpxdyGdOk/PO/9Ude:1000:1000:mojave:0:0::/home/sioux:/bin/sh 1001 mysql:*:1001:1002:mojave:0:0::/home/mysql:/usr/bin/false 1002
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Gents, the driver was developed from Reyk in Germany. Reyk add a license to his code. So the question will be, what is the Europen/German law here. Maybe the OpenBSD project/Reyk should solve the problem in the same way as the gpl-violations.org initiative do it. Let the court decide. Will be happy to donate some money to force a decision at court. Reiner
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT convert GPL'd code to proprietary code. BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be Totally Free - specifically because you can convert the code to proprietary code. You could not be more wrong, I think. Seems to me the BSD license is designed precisely to prevent this. Granting of rights != transfer of ownership. You can _use_ BSD-licensed code in a proprietary product; that does not mean you have a proprietary claim on the BSD-licensed code. That's the point of requiring that the copyright/license notice be retained. There is no conversion to proprietary code here. In this respect GPL and BSD are in complete agreement. The difference is in the obligations they impose on the licensee regarding use. BSD imposes one simple negative condition - you /must not/ remove the license. GPL imposes a more complex set of positive conditions - you /must/ make alterations available under the same license. In neither case does ownership enter the picture. Copyright law goes back centuries, contract law goes back to the Romans. There's more than meets the eye there; common sense interpretations uninformed by some degree of awareness of the legal traditions - as in, I don't see anything in there that says I can't do X is almost certain to be wrong. IANAL, though. Talk to one of them if you really have a burning desire to understand all this. Even then, only the courts can settle the matter. -Gregg
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. So if you want, we can friendly chat more about this. If I ever pass around your vicinity I would love to offer you a beverage of your choice at the nearest spot you like :) Best, Rui -- P'tang! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? Isn't that rude?
I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.
[ A copy of this is going to the linux kernel mailing list, regarding the recent license modifications to reyk's files] Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with: /* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */ /* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $*/ /*- * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting * All rights reserved. Of course you do! because some of reyk's work used some of Sam's work, and unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not *removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors. That's the point. He's not saying he wrote this piece, and he's not *changing* the conditions under which Sam distributed the code in the first place. However what scares me more is the seeming willingness to make the authors of a derivative work appear to be the primary authors of something, and a willingness to change an authors copyright statement (on reyk's code) without his permission. I have always immensely respected the GPL - it has very noble goals, they are very appropriate in some cases, they don't happen to be mine, but that's fine, I don't release my code under it - but that's fine, it's my choice. Just like many smart people who I know and respect do their work in GPL land, and this is great too. However, when it comes time to be looking at someone else's work above all we have to respect the various authors choice of how they want their hard work shared with the community. To me, this seems like a portion of the Linux community seems to be wanting to make their own rules, chosing to rewrite a license at any time they choose without the original author's agreement. This appalls and scares me. Why? not only does it show a huge lack of respect for someone who has worked very hard to produce something the whole community can use, but seriously undermines software freedom as a whole. This is a slippery slope. If one community starts modifying the others licenses for no purpose other than zealotry, I see only two consequences: 1) a hugh rift of mistrust between the developers of both camps, meaning no cooperating to make the world a better place. 2) A weakening of the respect for licensing on all sides of the community, which weakens the credibility of both BSD *AND* the GPL license when tested from the outside. Frankly, this scares the hell out of me and dismays me. I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from Theo, and he's a great target to bash, and start thinking about what you are doing to free software as a whole. I think you are on the verge of doing irreparable damage that will seriously weaken the ability for all of our projects to move forward, and protect our rights as code authors in the future. -Bob
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from his choice on has to be on the same terms he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and ^^ conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' ^^ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? On the 5 files that are not dual licensed, we agree. On the other 3 ones... I'm sorry, they felt they needed to make sure nobody would deprive other users of the code they distribute. Isn't that rude? On the 5 files, yes. On the other ones, not really. On the other three ones what seems to me is we offered it under two possible sets of conditions, you chose one we don't like, so we cry foul. This is what seems rude to me, and I was trying to understand if it was a problem with all files or just the 5 ones I noticed that weren't dual licensed (in which case I fully agree with you). Best, Rui -- Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from his choice on has to be on the same terms he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 Yes, I don't think you actually disagree with Theo -- what Theo tries to say is that you simply cannot alter the text of the licence -- but you can, obviously, select the terms of whatever one licence you want to use. If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and NetBSD, IIRC. C.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? Both! You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively That is not true at all. You have to adhere to ALL licenses. This is not even remotely a slippery slope. You are making shit up to match your argument. The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from his choice on has to be on the same terms he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 blah blah blah. You have to adhere to both licenses. Alternatively means nothing in this sentence. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and ^^ conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' Exactly; you need to adhere to all licenses. What part isn't clear? The GPL and ISC are compatible here. ^^ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? On the 5 files that are not dual licensed, we agree. On the other 3 ones... I'm sorry, they felt they needed to make sure nobody would deprive other users of the code they distribute.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and NetBSD, IIRC. This has to agreed by all copyright holders. Best Martin
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? Both! That's not what the copyright notice of the files * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h said. It said it was licensed under the BSD ters. *Alternatively* on the GNU GPLv2. Its alternatively not at the same time You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively That is not true at all. You have to adhere to ALL licenses. This is not even remotely a slippery slope. You are making shit up to match your argument. It is true in this files, and that's what I'm talking about. * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Please stop rudely calling me a liar, ok? You have neither the right nor truth on your side to do that. blah blah blah. You have to adhere to both licenses. Alternatively means nothing in this sentence. Yes, I suppose ignorance is power too... Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and ^^ conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' Exactly; you need to adhere to all licenses. What part isn't clear? That's section 6 of the GPL. These terms are the terms of the GPL if you chose the GPL. Your agreement is not relevant. The law is. Sure, take them to court, it's your money. However I suggest english 101 first. -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. I am not being unreasonable. You are not a judge, so stop acting like you are one. You don't know the full story. I do not know the full story either. But you are being a real prick on the lists here acting as if you have everything all figured out, you, the judge. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* I am glad you are so sure, so confident. Are you placing money on the outcome? Many many other people are NOT SO SURE AT ALL. So leave it, ok?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and NetBSD, IIRC. This has to agreed by all copyright holders. You are mistaken, it has not -- as long as the licences are compatible and the names of the copyright holders appear aligned to their correct licence. However, with this Atheros HAL case this is not the solution -- if the Linux people wrap GPL around BSD code, then we won't be able to get any changes back. C.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: ath5k, license is GPLv2 The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at least private industry does not come to the table with hey, let's cooperate - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly. However, when a linux developer comes to us and say hey lets cooperate usually there is a thought of this is a kindred spirit who understands what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back. My concern is that this situation will change if this is not rectified. I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back. -Bob
Re: DNS server setup for multiple domains
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:34:00PM -0700, David Newman wrote:
The name server FQDN is server1.abcd._com_.xy (first domain)
but, how to name the server in the SOA record for the rest
of the domains?
1. Add more zones for your new domains in your named.conf file.
Here's a bind 9 example:
zone abcd.com.xy in {
type master;
file /etc/namedb/master/db.abcd.com.xy;
allow-query { any; };
allow-transfer { xfer; };
};
On OpenBSD named runs chroot in /var/named:
options {
..
..
allow-query { any; };
allow-transfer { xfer; };
};
zone example.com {
type master;
file master/example.com;
};
zone example.org {
type master;
file master/example.org;
};
zone example.net {
type master;
file master/example.net;
};
If the contents of the zones are to be basically the same, do this
instead (use one template):
zone example.com {
type master;
file master/example.template;
};
zone example.org {
type master;
file master/example.template;
};
zone example.net {
type master;
file master/example.template;
};
And in /var/named/master/example.template do:
$TTL 2D ; client caching [RFC 1035]
@ SOA (
ns0.your.domain.; master name server
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ;zone maintainer's email [RFC 2142]
2007070200 ; serial, todays date + todays serial #
1D ; refresh
2H ; retry
5W ; expire
2D ); client negative caching [RFC 2308]
NS ns1.your.domain.
NS ns2.your.domain.
NS ns3.your.domain.
MX 0 smtp.your.domain.
www CNAME vweb.your.domain.
imapCNAME vmail.your.domain.
pop CNAME vmail.your.domain.
...
..
If you want there to be a hostmaster per domain, just do this in the
template, it will get expanded to hostmaster@domain-in-the-@, remember
that the zone's name gets set in named.conf, not in the zone file
(usually..., so the name of the zone file does not need to reflect the
name of the zone, just conventional for us hostmasters to read quickly):
hostmaster ;zone maintainer's email [RFC 2142]
Buy the DNS BIND book, and the DNS BIND Cookbook too.
--
Craig Skinner | http://www.kepax.co.uk | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words without modification? As I explained to a friend of mine minutes ago .. adding GPL to BSD is sad to the BSD people (we can't use the GPL code then) adding GPL and removing BSD is not legal Who's side are you on anyway suggesting legal battles? The lawyers, the companies, or free software? On Saturday 01 September 2007 16:45:50 Reiner Jung wrote: Gents, the driver was developed from Reyk in Germany. Reyk add a license to his code. So the question will be, what is the Europen/German law here. Maybe the OpenBSD project/Reyk should solve the problem in the same way as the gpl-violations.org initiative do it. Let the court decide. Will be happy to donate some money to force a decision at court. Reiner -- Todd Fries .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ | \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice) | Free Daemon Consulting \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice) | http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX) | ..in support of free software solutions. \ 250797 (FWD) | \ \\ 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that is OK. When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard. Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed, and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds? Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I ask? Why Luis puts the phrase legal hell next to entirely free software? [0] Why is he trying to go against the BSD community, which gave him the entire HAL framework for the driver in question? Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: ath5k, license is GPLv2 The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at least private industry does not come to the table with hey, let's cooperate - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly. However, when a linux developer comes to us and say hey lets cooperate usually there is a thought of this is a kindred spirit who understands what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back. My concern is that this situation will change if this is not rectified. I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back. Theo explicitely accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one licence for dual licenced code was advising people to break the law. I hope you agree when talking about cooperation [...] based on morals and trust that such accusations should either be proven correct or the moral position of the person who made such accusations becomes quiet weak. -Bob cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Re: Asus Striker Extreme does not support 4GB memory
On 8/31/07, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 31/08/2007, Sam Fourman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be a retarted question, but can a Intel quad core run amd64 just as i386 doesn't run on 80386, amd64 does run on Intel Core 2 processors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 C. Silly me for assuming that the amd part of amd64 meant only amd lol I was wondering why the BSD's never had x86-64 like linux does. Now I understand that amd64 is for both amd and intel alike. Thank you guys, the thing I love about this Open Source stuff is that it sparks new learning everyday. Sam Fourman Jr.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Theo de Raadt wrote: For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license. BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally, but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the BSD License allows them to.
CRRC News - Occupancy at an all time high in Tulsa
If you're looking for an apartment in the city of Tulsa, good luck. Occupancy levels are at an all-time high. So, prices are heading up as well. And, the situation is growing. To read more of this incredible News Channel 8 segment visit http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0807/451742.html CRRC Tulsa 1831 E. 71st Tulsa, OK 74163 (918) 557-5966 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To be removed send a blank email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: More on the Atheros driver situation
On Saturday 01 September 2007, Theo de Raadt wrote: Well, it looks like the Linux wireless people have decided that their relatively small modifications to the Atheros driver will be GPL'd, and not given back to improve the driver in the *BSD world. http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2 All the email addresses you need to mail to express your distaste at this are right in that mail, except for one, which is Eben Moglen [EMAIL PROTECTED]. I've done what I can for now; Good luck to the rest of you. No worries Theo. That's easy to fix. Just delete the GPL license and copyright statement from the source files and replace that GNU shit with a nice, clean the BSD license. In fact, while we're at it, let's make a BSD licensed fork of GCC. With a little regex magic, we could have the new BCC fork done by tomorrow. (for those idiots who understand neither sarcasm nor copyright law, please ignore this post) jcr
