Bind v. TinyDNS

[Mark Mielke]

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 08:09:54AM -0500, Jeff Kinz wrote:
> No - Please visit http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> for a complete definition of what it means to be open source.
> Dr B's license (If you can find it which is the first problem :-)
> Seems to say that you cannot re-distribute his software (A requirement
> for the term "Open Source" to apply), but that you can distribute
> patches to his software.  A minor but significant restriction as
> you having to apply patches to access the modifications is not
> required with Open Source software.

So it is "open source", but not "Open Source [TM]". There will always be
arguments such as this. Richard Stallman is careulf to point out that
"Open Source [TM]" is not "GPL", "GNU", or "Free Software [TM]".

In the end, I as a user don't care. If I can see the source code, and apply
my own patches, I have what I need. So if it is "I have a server: Should I
use BIND or TinyDNS?" my answer would *not* be primarily based on
"Which one comes with Fedora?" (although other people may choose this
criteria...).

I think it means TinyDNS cannot be part of the official Fedora distribution.

mark

-- 
mark at mielke.cc/markm at ncf.ca/markm at nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/