On 15 Nov 2000, Chris K. Young wrote:
> I say that dist.html should be considered authoritative. There are
> references in the qmail and djbdns documentation that contain the
> URL to their respective pages.
But there are ABSOLUTELY no references to dist.html or softwarelaw.html in
the source tarballs. I have examined qmail 1.03 (including the bundled
sort-of documentation) and dnscache 1.00 (I do not think the most djbdns
is so different to justify the costs of downloading it right now, via a
slow modem link).
Moreover, softwarelaw.html is about using the software ``once you've
legally downloaded [it]'', dist.html is about (re)distribution of qmail
(again, once you've...). The mere fact something is published on the
Internet does not make downloading it legal (DJB's theories in
http://cr.yp.to/rights.html notwithstanding), esp. when the thing in
question does not carry any ``you can copy me'' label (for the same
reasons the mere fact I neglected to close and lock the door of my house
does not give you the right to enter and take my stuff).
--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."
