From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Feb 19 10:35:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89F637B4EC for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:35:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f1JIZVe18306; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:35:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:35:31 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Matt Dillon Cc: Terry Lambert , josb@cncdsl.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DJBDNS vs. BIND Message-ID: <20010219103531.N6641@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200102191012.DAA17412@usr05.primenet.com> <200102191825.f1JIPde37350@earth.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200102191825.f1JIPde37350@earth.backplane.com>; from dillon@earth.backplane.com on Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 10:25:39AM -0800 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Matt Dillon [010219 10:26] wrote: > :When I brought up the issue of the old Soft Updates license being > :a problem for Best Internet, I wasn't joking: technically, they > :were using Soft Updates legally, but sale of their business when > :they were acquired could have triggered the license clause which > :prohibited FreeBSD from being shipped with the code compiled into > :the kernel and enabled by default. > > Huh? It was a while ago but I am fairly certain I sent a Kirk a > check for our use of softupdates at BEST. I understand your point, > though, but it's a rather severe interpretation and I don't think > it applies to either softupdates or DJBDNS. I think Terry is tossing the idea around that it would or couldn't be possible for a company aquisition to transfer all software licenses. If this is how it works, suddenly whomever bought Best got to use softupdates in a much larger setup than Kirk probably initially thought. Sort of like Foocom Inc buying a license to ship several hundred units a year at a bargain price then having Sun swallow them and take advantage of the license. If this isn't how it works, then whomever bought Best might have been in for a lot of trouble depending on how much Best itself relied on softupdates to function. If the license was non-transferable even through aquisition then it might render a lot of Best's technology useless. All this is speculation, I'm sure Best liked softupdates, but could have managed without them. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message