ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Jun 15 10:08:30 UTC 2016
On 6/14/2016 11:19 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
> On 15/06/2016 10:29, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> On 6/14/2016 4:28 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>>> On 15/06/2016 05:38, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>>> It seems some on the list are short on philosophy? Well here is
>>>> the actual philosophy and I'll apologize in advance that it won't fit
>>>> in a SMS message for those people unable to have deep thoughts more
>>>> complex than a SMS message. Hopefully you are not one of them.
>>> I guess we can read this as you are, or are related to, one of these
>>> commercial entities that are not playing nice... There is absolutely no
>>> other reason one would be so dead against it as you are.
>> Or, you could simply just copy and paste my name into Linkedin and see
>> who my current employer is. Wow there's even a click-able website
>> there! What will they think up next, Maw!!!
>> I know, too boring.
> Why? Its not important to me who your employer is, I have far far far
> far far better things to do than research every poster I reply to.
> I have also notes the quality of your posts on other lists over time, so
> I would be even less inclined to bother. I havent and arent going to
> bother, its irrelevant who they are, most of us have several ties to
> orgs outside our main income stream. I can assure you my linkedin page
> which hasnt been updated in ages, even when current, didnt list half of
> Again, if you are a user - there is no change
> if you are a redistributor: there is no change - UNLESS you modify BIND
> and keepo it to yourself - thats fair, Vicky's post explained it so well
> a child could understand it, if someone is affected by the pending
> change, then they are part of the problem that brought this about.
Rather than waste any more electrons I'll just refer you to the
appropriate documentation that covers the substance of your post:
More information about the bind-users