From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Sep 11 18:28:51 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from arutam.inch.com (ns.inch.com [207.240.140.101]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5607814DB3 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 18:28:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freyes@inch.com) Received: from tomasa (freyes.static.inch.com [207.240.212.43]) by arutam.inch.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/UTIL-INCH-2.0.0) with SMTP id VAA09328 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:28:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199909120128.VAA09328@arutam.inch.com> From: "Francisco Reyes" To: "FreeBSd Chat list" Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:27:12 -0400 Reply-To: "Francisco Reyes" X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Professional (2.01.1600) For Windows 98 (4.10.1998) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: New bind not completely open source... why GPL is not always best Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org There is an article at Linux Weekly News http://www.lwn.net/ how BIND 8.2 will have some code which although still free to distribute it will not meet %100 the definition of Open Source. Highlights of the license are: -Free to use -Free to change as long as the they have the right to use the changes -Some parts of the code can only be used for DNS handling functions -If said parts of the code are changed they can not modify the API The "parts" I am refering to are the DNSsafe part of Bind. There are a number of people who seem to be outraged at this restrictions and are crying out for changing the parts of BIND that use DNSafe. So we are basically saying ... it works, it is free, we can change it, but.... let's go and re-do it anyway.. and with any luck we will leave some bugs or use not as safe methods. I am so happy I use FreeBSD with it's BSD license style. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message