[SunRescue] djbdns, BIND, and DNS Security

[Greg A. Woods]

[ On Monday, May 28, 2001 at 18:51:31 (-0400), Joshua D. Boyd wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: [SunRescue] djbdns, BIND, and DNS Security
>
> My big problem with your license is the logistics issue.  For instance,
> what happens if I try to combine your code with GPL'ed code (I really like
> libreadline, but all programs written with it must be GPL)?  What if
> I try to combine it with MPL code? Maybe nothing bad, because I'm sure
> your reasonable, but I don't know how much of a prick the Readline guy is.
> If you code were straight BSD without any changes, than I could blindly
> follow RMS's comments on combining BSD and GPL.

Given that my license is only a copyright license it can only cover my
own works.  It states very clearly what must be done when my software is
used as part of a collective work, either in a derrivative form or not.

The GPL is indeed literally a "legal" virus in any jurisdiction where
shrink-wrap contracts are enforcable.

However please note that it's not my copyright license (or any similar
*BSD or "Artistic" license) that violates the GPL, but rather the other
way around!  ;-)  (well strictly speaking under copyright law my license
is compatible with the GPL because it is more "open" than the GPL and
thus so long as any collective/derrivative work meet the GPL terms then
it will implicitly also meet most of my terms, and the rest of my termc
can easily be met without violating any GPL terms)

Meanwhile in any sane legal jurisdiction where shrink-wrap licenses are
null-and-void (eg. Canada), you can either interpret the GPL as void and
thus any GPL'ed code effectively with the default "All Rights Reserved"
status (in which case you cannot "use" the GPL code at all) or that its
intent be that the code is essentially freely redistributable and freely
modifiable (just as with my code) and thus it can be combined with my
code (and your code) into a collective work and all's well.

> Maybe I'm too much of a pessimist, but clashing licences and any liability
> that they might expose me to really worry. (as you could guess, I also
> abhore UCITA mainly because it might hold be finacially responsible for
> bugs in code I give away for free, or so I've been led to believe).

Copyright licenses are a piece of cake compared to software patents.
Luckily there are very few of the latter in Canada (yet!)....

The best I can advise is that you read and learn to understand the
potential legal interpretations of copyright law in your jurisdiction.
>From the point of view of an "open source" developer I don't think
there's very much you can do about any "foreign" jurisdictions (other
than hope that nobody violates any of your still reserved rights and
tries to force you to reclaim them under the foreign law).

Developers suffering under most USA jurisdictions are likely to be more
troubled by patent laws than copyright laws though, and the trouble with
them is that you might independently invent something that would still
put you in violation of a patent!  Even worse it seems that unlike
copyright law there are damages that can be collected from such
violations other than just profits made from the violation (i.e. you can
lose even if you gave away your code for free!).

Personally all I can say is that as a freeware developer I would have
long ago been forced to leaved left the USA if I'd orignally been born
(or lived as a resident) there.  Sorry my southern neighbours, but your
crazy laws are just not compatible with my needs!  As it is I consider
myself very very lucky to be a Canadian and I hope my efforts and those
of my countrymen will continue to bring into power Canadian governments
which will be able to resist at least the worst parts of any oppression
from our giant neighbour to the south and indeed also any from our
increasing powerful cousins in the EC.  Corporate oppression as mandated
by national governments and inter-national agreements is a very scary thing.

> As to distributing patches, yeah, I think anyone can.  They are a pain
> though (because multiple patches might conflict, thus giving birth to
> projects like MegaPov and Lame, which were both large patch sets against
> software that wasn't friendly to being forked).

NetBSD was once a "patch set" for 386bsd.  :-)

Until the majority of the open source world comes to understand sane
copyright licensing I don't think we're going to be free of the need to
make "fair use" of not-so-free works like those of our colleague djb.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods at acm.org>     <woods at robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <woods at planix.com>;   Secrets of the Weird <woods at weird.com>