> > Dan has given explicit permission to read, compile, modify and use > > the source code of djbdns. > > From http://www.qmail.org/not-open-source.html: > > "For a program to be "open source", you must be able to, among other > things, change the source and redistribute it. DJB prohibits > distribution of modified code and so programs which are so-licensed are > not open source." > > In other words, people who aren't the Free Software Foundation or OSI also > agree that Dan's license isn't an Open Source license. As I said, though, > whether that's good, bad, or irrelevant is up to the administrator. It's > just something that many people aren't aware of but would be interested in.
Good point. I suppose it's also a matter of the definition of 'Open Source'. For me, open source equates to 'I can read the code to see if it's trustworthy and can compile it so I know that I got what I read' but you're right, it doesn't pass the 'official' definition. Mark -- PGP: http://www.darklogik.org/pub/pgp/pgp.txt B776 43DC 8A5D EAF9 2126 9A67 A7DA 390F DEFF 9DD1
pgpdK93RGWXnK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
