On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 23:18, Christopher Chan wrote:
If it doesn't come with a license, then its even worse. According to most copyright laws in the world no one but the author has an authorized copy. Obviously, you missed something.
Heh. No I haven't.
I don't a license to own a book. Neither do I need a license to own a copy of a piece of software under any copyright law.
Ok. First you forget that the book is the implicit licensed copy.
Ah, there we go. Authorized copy does not mean it comes with a license.
Then you forget that software is normally distributed by law with a license, unless it is public domain.
Normally is the word here. There is nothing that says copyrighted works have to be distributed with a license.
Here's is my strong feelings to use tinydns over bind.
I did not advocate bind, necessarily. There's other programs, like Mara. I refrain from commenting Mara, since I don't know it, and my usage of bind is rather minimal and we like to keep it under controlled environments, because of its (in)security track.
No you did not advocate bind. All you did was attack DJB software because they do not come with a license at all much less a license that gives you the right to redistribute modified versions.
What he is is so anti-social that it is even reflected upon the way he automatically treats people he doesn't know, through his license.
what license?
