Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 13:12:59 +0200 (EET) From: Dmitry Pryanishnikov <dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: sshd. "UseDNS no" ignored? Message-ID: <20061202125559.N55820@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> In-Reply-To: <FB4BCA9D-9D5B-454B-B854-ED16DE21AEBD@mac.com> References: <d8a4930a0611210211q4920bfdkf7f0400c69df2689@mail.gmail.com> <4563126E.2060904@math.missouri.edu> <20061129143330.T82233@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0611301903110.14631@mussel.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> <20061130205045.A96066@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <3BC50132-2DD9-4FAA-8320-C945DF4BFD48@mac.com> <20061201120708.D81433@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <C8B42905-2A2B-4959-AF07-C3B4E6860930@mac.com> <20061201232848.I53143@atlantis.atlantis.dp.ua> <FB4BCA9D-9D5B-454B-B854-ED16DE21AEBD@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello! On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Nov 29, did you not say: > > "I'm still wondering why OpenSSH is _so_ inferior to SSH.COM's ssh2 (which is > also open-source)?"...? Yes, I did. And no, I didn't say anything about either licensing or OSI Open Source. > David Adam then asked "Is it really open-source?"; while you responded to > this question, your answer was misleading. The commercial version of SSH > publishes their source code, but that source code is not usable by many > people because of the restriction against commercial use. Specifically, the > answer to the question David asked is "no": the F-Secure/SSH Communications > version of SSH is not "OSI Open Source", per OSD #6. David didn't mention OSI at all, you do. >> 2) We _aren't_ in @opensource.org mailing list hierarchy - it's FreeBSD >> maillist, and I hope I'm free to _not_ submit anything to >> opensource.org's >> consideration, and just to express my opinion instead. > > While you are free to have an opinion about factual issues [1], if you insist > upon expressing an opinion which contradicts the facts (ie, such as claiming > that the SSH.COM license is "open-source"), you can expect people to disagree > with you by pointing out the relevant facts. I do insist on using the English word 'open' in it's vocabulary meaning (open == NOT closed; you _can_ see the sources for free), and yes, it's perfectly normal when people disagree with me ;) > As for submitting anything to the OSI mailing list: if you refrain from > claiming that a proprietary license is "open source", then have no concern. > > On the other hand, the OSI board does contact sites which misuse the OSI Open > Source trademark to claim their proprietary software complies with the Open I don't use, abuse or misuse "the OSI Open Source trademark". You just can't restrict the use of the English word "open", "open-source" etc, can you?! > -Chuck > > [1]: Oddly enough, many people think so highly of their own opinions that > they choose to ignore facts which contradict their opinions. I think my opinion deserves expressing here, and you have no facts that make me think otherwise. I think restricting the use of the phrase 'open-source' just to the OSI-blessed meaning looks the same as patenting mouse doubleclick by Microsoft ;) Sincerely, Dmitry -- Atlantis ISP, System Administrator e-mail: dmitry@atlantis.dp.ua nic-hdl: LYNX-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061202125559.N55820>