Re: License question: mod_throttle

[Jeff Bachtel <jeff@cepheid.org>]

> > I asked the author and he helpfully pointed out that the next release
> > of mod_throttle will have the same or a stricter version of the
> > license here:
> >
> > http://www.snert.com/Software/mod_watch/
> >
> > Which is rather unattractive.
> 
> So let me get this straight: To distribute a package or even mirror the 
> source code, you have to get a "prior written permission in hardcopy 
> (letter or fax) from the author". If you do it commercially, you also 
> have to pay a fee to the author.

That is incorrect. You are permitted to mirror the original source
distribution (a distfile) without any written permission, per Section 3.

Yes, a binary package would require permission.

> 
> That sounds like some really, really stupid license. Does the author 
> really want anyone to *use* this module? Have you talked to him about 
> the numerous problems of this license?

Is learning how to read a LICENSE file really so difficult? 

As for pulling the port, I don't understand the logic behind that at
all. We have perfectly functioning flags to indicate that binary
packages should not be included on the CDs or ftp sites. What,
exactly, is the big deal?

I dislike the idea that OpenBSD is alienating itself still further
from web application hosters, and that is the end result of making
stuff like bandwidth quotas, Expat, Apache upgrades, etc. difficult.

jeff

> 
> --Benny.
> 

-- 
Jeff Bachtel  (root@ISC,TAMU)    http://www.cepheid.org/~jeff
				 [finger jeff@cepheid.org for PGP key]