rob0 at gmx.co.uk
Wed Jan 7 21:48:14 UTC 2004
In article <bthl51$1i63$1 at sf1.isc.org>, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> djbdns is not open source. You can view and modify the source, sure, but
I checked the definition of "open source" at http://www.opensource.org ,
and lo and behold, you are correct. Hmmm, I would have thought that the
source being, uh, OPEN, to view and modify, would be "open source". I
guess I need to brush up on my Newspeak, or something. :)
"Open source" IIUC originated as a variant of "free software" with a
definition designed to appeal to bean-counters and other suits. They
don't warm up to Stallman's rhetoric about freedom. How could they,
since so many of them see their mission as being to take away others'
> Don't mistake "source is available" for "is open source". It's nowhere
You're making a very good point here, don't misunderstand me. But to
argue terminology, I prefer "free software". No word games involved.
Still, ordinary users are not likely to suffer much under DJB's non-free
licensing, or at least not perceptibly so. They do possibly suffer from
the stagnation and the stifling effects on those who might improve the
software, or perhaps even implement some unimplemented standards. We'll
probably never see things like DHCP DDNS in djbdns.
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply
More information about the bind-users