[MaraDNS list] AlphaDNS...

Sat Apr 30 07:59:21 EDT 2011

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Wow,

That was a good read Rick, and at the risk  of being flamed for going
off-topic on Sam's list, I've got some points you might be able to
address for me :)

1.) This was pretty much the nail in the coffin that turned my stomach
(and thinking) around on the GPL: http://www.topology.org/linux/gpl.html

I had been vasilating over dumping my support for the FSF's [L]GPL(s)
for some time already, and although I benefit from it, and believe in
free software, my concerns with it have centered around the
psychological warfare and bullying that RMS is legendary for.

Specifically, as it was related by Ulrich Drepper of glibc notability.

I've created a 'few' things that were more non-trivial than other things
that I dutifully glued the GPL to, and although these larger projects
are technically still at this time under the GPL, it's a rather moot
point since no one has ever seen them but me.

The client software for these applications simply accesses the API, and
those clients were GPL'd, yet my backends were proprietary as far as I
was concerned, yet if I wanted to release them, I considered that the
GPL would have been the mechanism I used for licensing.

Now, however, the GPL merely turns my stomach. Don't get me wrong, and
I've already stated above that I have reaped many benefits from the GPL,
and I seek out and use GPL'd software too, but to release any of my
works under this license nowadays is simply incomprehensible.

And it's not Stallman's bullying or at times vitriolic disposition
either that sways me away from it, it is simply the notion that the GPL
v7 could effectively close source any and all GPL'd software that kept
that little line, "or any later verion of the GPL" (paraphrased, of course.

It's not the point that I could simply remove that line. The point is
that the authority for the license is now ceded to Stallman.

Maybe that's a good thing, because you inadvertently imply that
regardless, there may be cupability - why else would our justice system
prohibit the divestiture of ownership?

I'm not saying that RMS would radically change a future GPL to anything
so atrocious as, "This work was once free but no more sucker" - but he
(or someone else leading the FSF) could, and licensing a work under the
auspices of perpetuity to an organization I have no say so over is
rather odd, to me anyway, in this day and age.

I don't even really believe that that will happen - but again, it could.

2.) You've really opened up my eyes wrt the notion of 'public domain'
and toward the end of that page (I didn't follow any of the links but
read your entire page) Bernstein shows once again that he should stick
with code and not engage in shadetree lawyering - he puts a lot of words
in peoples mouths (Maybe he would have made a good atty).

3.) Here's what I'm leaning towards now, as I note that the original (4
clause?) BSD licenses are not considered free by the FSF:
http://www.topology.org/LICENCE.ak

or

http://webknotes.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/wkn/browse.cgi?theme=happyfree&LICENSE

Going back to topology.org's rant, I also found this notion a bit
disturbing regarding the BSD license:

<snip>
A disadvantage of this BSD license is that the modifier of this code is:

   1. permitted to modify the code and still claim it is the same
software [they say "with or without modification"!];
   2. not required to provide a copy of the unaltered original when
distributing the altered version;
   3. permitted to distribute binary without source, even if the binary
is from modified source.

This means that the author could be blamed for other people's modifications.
</snip>

You don't implicitly raise the issue of culpability on the page you
supplied the link for, but like I said before, I felt a loose
implication of such on your part.

I'm really interested, especially since you don't even mention it, what
your 'take' and/or interpretation of the Artistic license is.

Basically, I'm a selfish human, and although I want to offer my works
(most of them) to others to use (for the most part) as they see fit,
There's a couple of cannons I want them to adhere to.

A.)	I want my name on it. no matter where the software ends up. I think
it was an earlier BSD license that was cited somewhere as ridiculous
because there were like 40 copyright holders as it was passed down
through the ages and improved upon.

That in and of itself doesn't bother me, but if there were five hundred
copyright holders in the list... well, that's a little silly.

B.) 	I want it to be clear that you can change the code, do with what
thou wilt, as long as my original, unmodified code is included - like
the GPL in that respect.

C.)	I want it clear that I don't warrant it for any particular
merchantability or what-ev, and if it's useful, kewl, if not, that's
kewl to, and if it blows up on your customers ERP system it's on you,
not me, and if you otherwise break it, you get to keep both pieces.

D.)	I want it clear that you can't do what the warning against BSD above
suggests, meaning that you can't say this is my program when you changed
the code (my code has to be included with any redistribution of the
modified code).

and

E.)	I don't even care if mACROsFOT integrates it into something they're
going to charge zillions of dollars to license - but they have to
include my original source (free source) along with their borgware.

um... Aside from the vane bit about "I want my name on it forever!", I
think that most developers in the FOSS world seek something quite
similar - we just don't interpret the licenses the same way.

Of course, I'm not going to call my license a "Modified Artistic
License". I'll call it "The Bradley License", or "The Watson License"
after my dad, or, "The Alveda License", after my mom.

I guess the selfishness on my part is just that I want the nod somewhere
down the line when someone says, "Who was the dude who originally came
up with this kewl app that I'm using?".

That's all, just a feather in my cap, a lack of culpability, a
prohibition of plagiarism, and an assurance that (legally, at least),
you'll always be able to get to the source I originally wrote and that
you can have it for free (not withstanding charging someone for the
favor of putting it on an 8" floppy for them, of course).

I take this legal stuff in small chunks, but think about it a lot. I'm a
geek, and as such this copyright mumbo jumbo has a tendency to make my
eyes glaze over.

If you don't dignify this post with a response, know this: That at the
very least you have cleared up some major mis-conceptions on my part
about "Public Domain", and the fact that one cannot divest a work of the
notion of ownership (since even if they send off the message in a
bottle, an offspring of theirs can claim rightful ownership of it later).

So for all practical purposes - There's no such thing as public domain
AFAIC from here on out.

Thanks again Rick, that was a real eye opener :)

Copyright 2011, Bradley D. Thornton - Do with this email as thou wilt
and in the spirit of Bill and Ted, "Be Excellent to each other".

On 04/29/2011 04:06 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Bradley D. Thornton (Bradley at NorthTech.US):
> 
>> I was fumbling through things, and stumbled over what was claimed to
>> be a 'fork' of MaraDNS:
>> http://alfadns.org/wiki/A_quick-start_guide_for_experienced_UNIX_and_Linux_admins
>> I don't see anywhere that Jefsey has forked anything at all, yet it's
>> not too bad as far as a third party HowTo goes.
> 
> It seems that Jefsey aims to serve a specialised niche, ML-DNS, which
> expands to either multilayered DNS, and involves DNS being more closely
> integrated into 'extended naming functions' at higher layers in the
> software stack.  At a guess, he's still in the design phase.
> 
>> I'm glad there's an loldns, Bernstein painted himself into a corner as
>> far as I'm concerned and letting it go PD is what he should have done
>> much sooner, but even so, I personally prefer MaraDNS for my own zones,
>> and use named more for slaving zones served by MaraDNS than the other
>> way around most of the time.
> 
> I will not dwell here on the legal pitfalls of PD declarations, as
> that's far beyond the scope of this mailing list, but I've covered that
> here:  http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html
> 
> For those people who consider even an unproblematic one-line licence like 
>   'Copyright (C) 2011 Owner Name. Do whatever you want with this work.'
> too lengthy, loldns might not appeal, as Joshua Small uses for it a
> quirky permissive licence of his devising.  However, Mark Johnson's fork
> 'zinq-djbdns' and Gerrit Pape's fork Debian djbdns/dbndns are both
> professed to be public domain.
> 

- -- 
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
NorthTech Computer
TEL: +1.760.666.2703  (US)
TEL: +44.203.318.2755 (UK)
http://NorthTech.US

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Find this cert at x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net

iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJNu/mZAAoJEE1wgkIhr9j3UvAIAJ2BvZZlx63Nkm2W3HKW5UPT
VkLuoChvxLNFYuN3jKF0FyvQ8+3Ixuv1vbKutfhHuUrcYwjA7BRPh74JFEaIc1Kr
ocvuUGfqJHc9JTUPbBVUTsouqA8QsAiJKYRh0tyxL/TTTSMY19Qa0mJ8udoMtX7c
SdbLLIP1O+ceBG95sDQAVacckfFlGPCmUbVNxOwauDYXwXCgBSc4XolWir9GqLz2
7NvnDhwT3dAtf7e0F4ndttnkfI3rywBANwmeKeYakXSK4DWLsLEeSZFZ9t1mEgWN
diQ1RXvmeS2/my4KcxTg0tUDHDQsxg0d7h8JiNwHMqgkd3fc3AKECrQo0hQS2XM=
=+1kI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----