Thread started here ("Why were all djb ports removed?", asked by Andrey Smaygin): https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00459.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99867604230539&w=2 I am just curious - why exactly were all the DJB ports dropped? [...] Theo's initial response: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00460.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99867670800407&w=2 Precisely because of what the commit message says: "Removed qmail; license does not permit modification [camield 2001-08-14]" Bernstein finally notices, and makes a non-sequitur counter-attack: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00499.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99895666324315&w=2 > That code has never been free. When are you going to stop shipping Netscape 4? Hypocrite. Jeff Bachtel gamely rebuts the non-sequitur: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00500.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99895806027866&w=2 Netscape 4 is free for redistribution. And because it adopts something of a sane install location, it doesn't even have to have that patched. I think maybe "That code has never been free" was meant more to serve as a general warning to those who believe that you write what could be called "free software". Dan takes a swipe at someone named "Liam" who briefly spoke, trying in vain to help defuse the flamewar: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00504.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99897650402889&w=2 > OpenBSD puts no restriction what-so-ever upon my taking any component > that I choose and rewriting it any manner that I choose and in > installing it in any manner that I choose. How, pray tell, do you plan to rewrite Netscape 4, without violating the Netscape 4 copyright? Or are you claiming that Netscape 4 is not a ``component'' of OpenBSD? It has been provided for years as a port. It has even been provided as a package on several of the CD-ROMs. Why haven't you been objecting to it? Hypocrite. ---Dan ...which Theo then rebuts and reveals to be bullshit: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00505.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99897961008740&w=2 > It has been provided for years as a port. It has even been provided as a > package on several of the CD-ROMs. Why haven't you been objecting to it? No, it has never been on the CD. The most restrictive source or binary license on the CD is the GPL. I don't think vim or pine or pico made it on either, since their licenses have tiny restrictions. > Hypocrite. > > ---Dan Why do you sign your email twice? Marc Espie confirms this, and adds a telling point: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00508.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99898522023608&w=2 Check your facts, you'll look like less of an idiot. Netscape4 is explicitly marked as non-redistributable in the ports. (All PERMIT_PACKAGES are set to no) Precisely because we read the software licence and followed it. On the other hand, you set very explicit restrictions that we obviously can't possibly meet. Remove those restrictions, write something that looks like a real licence, and answer licence-related questions in your email, and you'll [observe] the djb-tools come back to the ports collection. In fact, why don't you just use the BSD licence ? Because it's used by your personal enemies ? Dan calls Marc Espie names: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00519.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99901770520858&w=2 I have an OpenBSD navigator-4.61.tgz package from more than a year ago. I checked ftp.openbsd.org yesterday, and it was still there. Why have you been distributing Netscape 4 packages? Why have you been including Netscape 4 in the ports? Hypocrite. > On the other hand, you set very explicit restrictions that we obviously > can't possibly meet. Liar. All you have to do is stop trying to screw around with the package. Many other distributors---those that consider user happiness more important than control---are following the rules. > In fact, why don't you just use the BSD licence ? http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html Heikki Korpela rebuts part of that: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00521.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99901884825610&w=2 > Liar. All you have to do is stop trying to screw around with the > package. Many other distributors---those that consider user happiness > more important than control---are following the rules. OpenBSD won't follow your rules. Ports tree has to "screw up" with packages if they don't fit in otherwise. It does so with Netscape, too. > http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html OpenBSD is not the OS with a colored panama. (Ruthlessly stolen from a CVS commit log.) In OpenBSD, it's more important for to have a consistent layout through the system, especially the ports, than to have a consistent layout for each package throughout all the systems. And Theo rebuts the rest of it: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021135/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00531.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99903044711380&w=2 > I have an OpenBSD navigator-4.61.tgz package from more than a year ago. > I checked ftp.openbsd.org yesterday, and it was still there. And yesterday you claimed it was on the CD. > Why have you been including Netscape 4 in the ports? Hypocrite. We include a wrapper for it in the ports tree because they have a non-discretionary licence. I've said this three times now, and won't say it again. > > On the other hand, you set very explicit restrictions that we obviously > > can't possibly meet. > > Liar. Dan, do you want to go the next step? Shall I go through my entire book of names? > All you have to do is stop trying to screw around with the > package. But we don't accept that. Therefore, in respect of your wishes, we will instead just let users get the unmodified package from you. Sorry Darr, er, Dan, but that is just how it is going to be. We don't care if you like it, like you don't care to let us make changes which make it fit into OpenBSD better. We don't care. Just please go away. (Theo's jibe about "Darr..." is a nod to the earlier episode about Darren Reed's IPFilter code for OpenBSD: Reed attempted to strongarm the OpenBSD Foundation into accepting his mid-2001 addition of a restrictive licensing term, only to find to his astonishment that OpenBSD is serious about freedom, jettisoned his code, and immediately wrote "pf" from scratch as a replacement.) And Marc Espie does the same: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021143/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00534.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99904003416573&w=2 > I checked ftp.openbsd.org yesterday, and it was still there. Oh? Where is it? It might be some very old stuff, or a local screw-up. Thanks for not giving me a URL so that we can correct the problem. > Why have you been distributing Netscape 4 packages? Why have you been > including Netscape 4 in the ports? Hypocrite. *PORTS* are distinct from *PACKAGES*. Netscape *explicitly* doesn't want people to redistribute their binaries. They're control-freaks, but less than you. > > On the other hand, you set very explicit restrictions that we obviously > > can't possibly meet. > Liar. All you have to do is stop trying to screw around with the > package. Many other distributors---those that consider user happiness > more important than control---are following the rules. I have a nice book that talks about happiness for the users. It's called _Brave New World_. Want a copy ? No, your restrictions go against the OpenBSD goals. So we can't meet them. Or we cease to exist. And btw, - don't call me liar when you're simply ranting. I don't take kindly to insults. - repair your email so that we can reach you... (The bit about "repair your email so that we can reach you" refers to Dan's software bouncing any offlist duplicate copy you send of a mailing list reply. Marc was unaware that Dan _did_ receive the mailing list copies.) To unpack Marc's distinction between ports and packages: OpenBSD had shipped as part of its ports collection an open-source wrapper that permitted a OpenBSD host to fetch and install the binary-compiled Netscape 4 proprietary Web browser, working around Netscape's restriction against third-party redistribution (but this was a less problematic restriction than Dan's), and making adjustments such as placing it into /usr/local. Marc's point is that Dan's suggestion that OpenBSD had been distributing Netscape 4 as a _package_ (which would have committed the tort of copyright violation) appeared to be false. (It is of course also a non-sequitur distraction from the larger point that OpenBSD Foundation was now honouring Dan's restrictive licence terms by deciding to discontinue the ports of his software.) [Separately, one Brian J. Kifiak provided the location of the Netscape 4.x package on the OpenBSD ftp collection: 'It's in /pub/OpenBSD/2.6/packages/i386/ .' This was a binary package incidental to OpenBSD's 1999 release of v. 2.6, long gone now (2019) from ftp.openbsd.org, but still visible in a few mirrors, such as here: https://ftp.icm.edu.pl/pub/OpenBSD/2.6/packages/i386/navigator-4.61.tgz .] Dan keeps at it: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021059/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00552.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99904003416573&w=2 > We include a wrapper for it in the ports tree because they have a > non-discretionary licence. Nonsense. Netscape decides for itself what Netscape 4 modifications are allowed--- just as I decide what qmail modifications are allowed. Netscape hides the source code to discourage third-party patches. Netscape also has private commercial arrangements with several other companies. Despite all this, and despite all your sermons about freedom, you've been distributing Netscape 4 ports for years. Hypocrite. > > I checked ftp.openbsd.org yesterday, and it was still there. > And yesterday you claimed it was on the CD. Sorry. Either way, you've been distributing the package for years. Damien Miller cuts through the bullshit: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021059/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00554.html Netscape don't say "You are not allowed to install this package in /usr/local because we think our system is better". Netscape have a proper license. Netscape doesn't require the port maintainer to come running to them every time they make a packaging change. Theo sums up: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021059/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00564.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99907075517150&w=2 > You have repeatedly, on your dns@ list, advised people to just > download the source from your sites and install it by your directions > (which ARE rather straightforward and trivial), not use ports, RPMs, > etc. NOW, you gripe about the OpenBSD team FOLLOWING your wishes and > removing what you would probably have termed an "unauthorized port". > This is most curious. Ie. OpenBSD is being nice. > You have repeatedly stated your belief in the nonsense of license > agreements, and some indirect talks with a friend of mine who is a > professor (and lawyer) of intellectual property law indicates you are > probably correct. (However, determining for "sure" will probably take a > lot of lawyers, a lot of money, and a Supreme Court decision.) > HOWEVER, a license (sometimes) gives a clear statement of goals and > desires of the author/publisher; this is very useful, even if not > legally binding. Can the GPL be enforced? Who knows? (I don't place > bets when lawyers are involved.) But, it states what the AUTHOR > wishes, and at least some people view this as a good thing to have and > respect. The fact that what you have said about your distribution > policies is contrary to the desires of the OpenBSD team reflects > nothing bad on either you nor them. I.e., OpenBSD is being cautious. > One thing I think many people are forgetting is OpenBSD is not a > democracy. If the developers wish to exclude software from the > 'ports' tree, because they don't agree with (or are unclear on) some > bit of the distribution philosophy, it is well within their rights to > do so. If they wish to exclude software because the author slings > childish names, that's their right, too. If they wish to exclude > software because it does funny things to the otherwise internally > (more-or-less) consistent file system layout, they can. IF they just > wish to exclude it just because it is written by a certain individual, > AGAIN, that is their right. It isn't for you to decide if your > software goes into the OpenBSD ports package. It isn't for you to > decide if Netscape does or does not fit the philosophy. (That's between > Netscape and OpenBSD.) I.e., OpenBSD is a culture you are wasting your time trying to enforce a policy on. > Anyone who disagrees with this is free to start their own BSD project, > or even their own "OpenBSD ports" project. This is one of the nice > things (in my eyes -- and I respect that others may reasonably > disagree) about the BSD license. I.e., djbnix. > The decision has been made by the people who get to make that > decision. It is a direct result of your actions; it was not > arbitrary. Take responsibility for your actions; don't blame others > for the the consequences of them. I.e., it is over. > Dan, I have great respect for your programs, and your skill as a > programmer and as an application engineer. DJBDNS is a fantastic > product -- elegant in its simplicity, reliable, effective. I've been > an active advocate of it up to this point. I'm not going to say > "Well, you are unpleasant, therefore I'm going to switch to BIND" -- > that's idiotic logic, and we all know it. However, it is unfortunate > that the attitude you are expressing is so destructive to your own > causes. A reasonable reaction would be to say "Hey, I understand we > have a difference in goals" -- there is no reason to take it as a > personal attack. I.e., djb-love-fest held in Chicago next year, but Nick might not attend. > I'd love to have a Dodge Viper. However the dealer isn't willing to > give me one for a price I'm able/willing to pay, and I'm not ready to > hand them the cash they want for one: We don't agree on the terms of > the license or distribution, or whatever you want to call it. I'm not > evil, the dealer isn't evil, we just have an irreconcilable > difference, and I don't think either of us think poorly of the other, > because of it. Now, if they start trying to grab my money, or I start > trying to grab their car, well, then we have a problem, but certainly > not now. I.e., if you have a problem understanding all the connotations of the word "free", move to Boston. > The OpenBSD team did not remove your software from ports with any > visible malice, and some off-list discussions with at least one > important person indicates to me there was NO malice towards you in > the decision, just a desire to respect your written wishes and goals > AND the goals of the OpenBSD project, and not ask for compromises on > the part of either party. I.e., we 100% respect your http://cr.yp.to/wishes, and you act like a FUCKING ASSHOLE LOSER. > I don't think you are going to lose ANY potential software users here > because of being removed from OpenBSD's ports tree, and you may avoid > losing some. I can tell you, if I just saw 'djbdns' in ports and > installed it, and found stuff splattered all over my root directory, > I'd be very, very ticked off. The root directory is sacred to me, > under all the OSs I work with -- I don't appreciate ANY application > thinking they are so important as to think they have the right to hang > anything off the root without my permission. Heck, as it was, I was > pretty miffed when I found /package unexpectedly (just THOUGHT I > didn't have to go back to the install guide, because I'd done it a few > times before. 8-) I.e., hello, read-only / > On the other hand, I fear you may well be losing some potential users > based on the attitude shown here. There is just no reason for it. I.e.: Your loss. Bye-bye. And Theo pounds some more, for good measure: https://web.archive.org/web/20130120021059/http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/ports/0108/msg00567.html https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=99907186120709&w=2 > > We include a wrapper for it in the ports tree because they have a > > non-discretionary licence. > > Nonsense. We have a very clear differentiation between the rules for source patches and binary (non-)patches. All the other projects do too. If you don't understand our rules (and clearly don't want to understand them), why do you keep posting? Are you going to change my mind (quite questionable), or do you think you are going to change Marc Espie's mind. (He decides what packages exist..., and to be quite honest, I must tell you that he's French... to be honest, I think your chances are somewhere halfway between 0 and NULL.) > Netscape decides for itself what Netscape 4 modifications are allowed--- > just as I decide what qmail modifications are allowed. Netscape hides > the source code to discourage third-party patches. Netscape also has > private commercial arrangements with several other companies. Yes, and Netscape have never returned my phone calls so we can be on their "special list". And you have never returned email about special "do what you like" rules for your stuff. That said, Netscape's policies strictly DO PERMIT us to install Netscape in the places where our default install policy desire it to be installed. It happens to be the default that they prefer, although they do not state any issue with other locations. YOU DO. In a word, strictly following the informal rules that we apply to such situations, they are "compatible", and you are an 'asshole'. So, there is no beef. Where's the beef? Where's the beef? IN YOUR HEAD. > Despite all this, and despite all your sermons about freedom, you've > been distributing Netscape 4 ports for years. Hypocrite. You do not understand the issue, and you keep ignoring it. (Every time you post, it increases the happiness I feel for when I stopped short of proceeding into a graduate degree..., because I would not want to be one of those people who got a graduate degree, and became incapable of listening. READ THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE AGAIN, DAN. That said, we do not distribute a Netscape PACKAGE on CD-ROM. And I would be sceptical of seeing it on the FTP sites, and, if you see such a thing, please let us know, because it is an error. Let us be clear: We distribute a port. Just as we distribute an Opera port. These things do NOT violate a license, because we are allowed to make decisions at the PORTS level. Distributing your stuff would VIOLATE your wishes, since you demand that we NOT MAKE DECISIONS AT THE PORTS LEVEL. Both the Netscape and Opera licences permit what OpenBSD users needs. YOU DO NOT. If you are not capable of understanding the difference, please, in the interest of mailing list peace, and to be kind to our user community, why don't you just FUCK OFF? (I am saying this only because 100s of people are thinking the same.) Dan, PLEASE STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE. > > > I checked ftp.openbsd.org yesterday, and it was still there. > > > > And yesterday you claimed it was on the CD. > > Sorry. Either way, you've been distributing the package for years. Fact is, as far as I know, we have never distributed a Netscape package on CD (or we would be in violation), or on FTP (which is more questionable, but on different terms, since I have mailed and phoned Netscape and they have not answered my questions). I've been trying for years to tell our package guys that perhaps we should distribute Netscape packages... but they [think] we shouldn't, even though my reading of the license says we perhaps could, they disagree.... And, by the way, huge kudos to them for being as strong-willed regarding FTP sites as I normally am regarding CDs. What do you guys think... are our package guys wrong about us distributing Netscape packages... and, if so, can you please go pester Netscape (and Opera at the same time), about this issue?