Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
BSD Operating Systems

OpenBSD Removes qmail and djbdns From Ports Tree 50

Posted by michael from the nothing-so-bitter-as-a-license-dispute dept.
KingArtr writes: "qmail and djbdns have been dropped from the OpenBSD ports tree. According to the message from Theo de Raadt at the OpenBSD Ports Archive its because the license does not permit modification.". Update by nik: Note that NetBSD and FreeBSD continue to include qmail in their ports trees. DJB's license forbids redistribution of modified binaries, but does not forbid distribution of a 'framework' for modifying the source code.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenBSD Removes qmail and djbdns From Ports Tree More

OpenBSD Removes qmail and djbdns From Ports Tree

Comments Filter:

  • ugh (Score:2, Funny)

    by zentex ( 176409 )
    Theo at it again...*but*! that's what makes OBSD unique...(in an odd "it's my ball, so i'm taking it and going home" kinda way).

    I'd suspect that given a few more years of this, the only thing OBSD will have installed is anything made by the OBSD team, and emacs (which will be the shell, editor, mail prog, etc). :-)

  • get over it. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LiquidPC ( 306414 )
    I applaud Theo's decision, even if it does
    happen to piss a few people off;
    maybe now DJB will realize how much his
    licensing ideas suck, and change them.
    If you dont like OpenBSD's decision to
    remove it from its ports tree maybe you
    shouldn't use it, especially if you get
    pissed over such a small thing.

    • I applaud Theo's decision, even if it does happen to piss a few people off; maybe now DJB will realize how much his licensing ideas suck, and change them.

      That's a good one. Just about knocked me off my chair. No, DJB has some strong opinions [cr.yp.to] regarding copyrights and licenses, and I doubt he is going to change them anytime soon. Maybe a US Supreme Court decision on the validity of software licenses would make an impact. And maybe the world would be a better place if the Supremes agree with him.

      However, as an OpenBSD and qmail user, I'm distressed about all of this politics. And frankly, I've never liked having things like /var/qmail/bin kicking around, just because DJB is concerned about servicing installations that NFS mount /usr. Why is that my problem?

      I'm wondering if it is possible to create free software versions of DJB's projects, so people can benefit from his excellent design decisions without having to deal with his whacked-out directory policies.

      I suspect the correct way to go about this is to perform a clean-room copy of his work, where one person (or team) documents the way his software works, and someone else implements what was documented. Isn't that a valid copyright circumvention technique occasionally used in the hardware world? I can't find anything at google.

      • What's the big deal? He provides the source to the software allowing an administrator to modify the installation path. In qmail it's conf-qmail. In others, there are make files.

        He does like to engage in flame wars and insults, which is not beneficial or constructive for anyone. He also wants his software to run the world IMHO (and OpenBSD is one way to spread his software), so he flames OpenBSD mailing lists for not accepting his software because he doesn't let them modify his software for distribution. He wants to be in control of the installation paths, and not the distributors of his software.

        Debian has a nice way to deal with software not fitting their policy. In case of qmail the Debian package is simply a script to download and compile/install qmail. Problem solved.

  • Clarify, then the whirlwind (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So Theo tries to go through a "license audit" notices that qmail and djbdns have licenses that conflict with the OBSD "way" and after emailing djb, pulls them out of the ports tree. All the world is harmonious for a moment, then WHAM! everybody has an opinion, jumps in, flames and counter-flames, name-calling, and on. I'll keep using OBSD for my critical stuff, just like I have for the last 3 years. I have all the releases on CD, and keep buying them to keep it coming.

    What is so interesting is the amount of energy expended over a non-issue. Of course slashdotters will weigh in with their opinions which count for nothing, since they have neither coded or used OpenBSD. I had a RedHat Linux rooted before the company firewall, now my @home cable modem is firewalled by a stock OBSD, and it just keeps running.

    In case you think I pontificate, I use OBSD to run a 10,000 host domain, with an OC-3 to the Internet which sees probes/scans every day. Code Red II probes at about 1000 per minute.

    Do you ever notice that most of the BSD posts are centered around "personality" issues. In all the time I have had OBSD servers, I have never had one offend me, but then again, how can an inanimate object evoke emotions?

    [SYS-MSG]an iceberg was just dectected near Antartica
    • Do you ever notice that most of the BSD posts are centered around "personality" issues.

      Sure. <TROLL>BSD users know BSD (of whatever flavor) is technically superior to linux, therefore the only thing left to argue about is the politics!</TROLL>

      :)

  • Kudos to Theo for sticking by his guns (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bee ( 15753 ) on Friday August 31, 2001 @06:26PM (#2241481) Homepage Journal
    Looks like djb doesn't want to play by Theo's rules. No matter, that's his choice. But Theo chose what he wanted for OpenBSD a long time ago, and if djb doesn't like that, then that's his problem. Personally, I agree with Theo on many points: /usr/ports should stick to /usr/local for where they write stuff (I've never liked the whole damn /opt idea that Solaris popularized), and for pity's sake, anyone that thinks their software is important enough that it needs its own directory off / needs a serious ego-deflating! For all that people critisize RMS and his ego, all of the GNU tools are very well-behaved in that department. Would that others were equally as nice.
    • The idea of /OPT was reasonable (install KDE and everything goes into a single KDE folder) but, of course, it would have worked just as well as:

      /usr/kde
      /usr/local/kde
      /usr/opt/kde
      /usr/local/opt/kde

      but nooo, that would make partitioning FAR to easy for us... We've got to throw another semi-important root folder in there.!

      • Re:/opt (Score:1)

        by ixx ( 11362 )
        Here is some background on /opt

        http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.0/fhs-3.8.html
        • What was that supposed to tell me? I know what OPT is used for... and the rationale was less than a paragraph of meaningless info.

      • The idea of /OPT was reasonable (install KDE and everything goes into a single KDE folder) but, of course, it would have worked just as well as ... /usr/local/kde

        I agree. It's just as easy to make /usr/local/$PROGNAME on *n?x as it is to make C:\Program Files\%PROGNAME% on Windows and then throw a symlink to the executable into /usr/bin (the CLI equivalent of Windows's Start Menu).

  • I just read that mailing list thread and got quite a chuckle out of it.

    It's always amusing to watch two egomaniacs duel it out. I'd have to say Theo won this argument though, DJB came out looking like a real ass.
  • It took some digging to figure out what the real problem with the qmail license is. OpenBSD requires that all applications (including those in ports) play by the rules. One of those rules is that the root directory cannot be modified--this means that OpenBSD is guaranteed to work with a read-only root. qmail violates this rule, because it wants to create /packages. The qmail license explicitly forbids the OpenBSD team from changing qmail to put its files somewhere other than /packages.

    nik says: Note that NetBSD and FreeBSD continue to include qmail in their ports trees. DJB's license forbids redistribution of modified binaries, but does not forbid distribution of a 'framework' for modifying the source code.

    This is misleading. DJB's license forbids the ports framework from changing the behaviour of qmail to follow the OpenBSD rules.

    If you read the email between Theo and DJB, you will discover that DJB is angry that qmail is being dropped from OpenBSD ports, but he also refuses to allow anyone to change the behaviour of qmail to conform to the OpenBSD requirements for where package files are stored.

    If qmail was Open Source or Free software, then there would be no problem, because then the OpenBSD team would automatically have the right to adapt qmail to work with OpenBSD. But they do not have this right, and DJB has made it very clear that he will not allow anyone to make the necessary changes. So Theo did the right thing when he dropped qmail from ports.
  • While I'm currently a Debian linux user, I've been contemplating moving to BSD. The choice I have to make was between Free or OpenBSD. With Theo throwing tantrums and removing software I'd planned on using, it seems I'll be installing FreeBSD.
    • Yeah, you would'nt want to use an OS maitained by someone who actually enforces their policies in the name of system security. Someone who won't allow their OS to be softened by a few people who all of a sudden don't share ideals that have been intergral to the OS since dot. If they don't like Theo's rationale, then tough.

      An OS of the calibre of OpenBSD cannot exist without a leader with sound fundamental ideals who won't allow them to be changed by another ego. If Theo has a big ego, good, he can be forgiven given the quality of OpenBSD.

      I hear XP is out now, maybe that is an avenue for you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mater artium necessitas. [Necessity is the mother of invention].

Close