[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No more ports of unfree software



Ive been reading this thread, and I seem to have a reasonable
suggestion.. what about every ports developer that want all the 3rd
party tools without "clean" licenses (and even other ports not being
committed) setup their own CVS server.. it can sync with the "official"
OpenBSD ports, as well as containing their own codes.

As far as the "not officially from OpenBSD", I don't think that argument
would hold any water, because the Makefile and any patches would
obviously be open for anyone to read, and one could even download the
source from the official site and run md5 themselves if they dont trust
it. I think after a while, people will see that this repository can be
trusted and will use it as an alternative if they wish...

Thoughts?

On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:08:24PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> begin  electrogrammati illius Theo de Raadt
> 
> >We have met very few authors who are not willing to explain exactly
> >what copyright freedoms they grant to us, in a legal framework.  We've
> >met hundreds of authors who have been willing to clarify their license
> >in a legal form.
> 
> I agree with you in this respect (educating the authors, etc.), such
> as the IPFilter issue - but keep your fingers out of the ports tree.
> It _is_ there to make users able to run third-party software, unfree
> as well as just not in the base system.
> We've had netscape for ages. (And no midnight commander, wtf?)
> 
> //Thorsten
> -- 
> Willst Du wegen dummer User immer 'Ja, ich will' nach einem rm an /dev/tty
> eingeben müssen?		-- Bodo Eggert in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery

-- 
+ Microsoft doesn't believe in free() code.