ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Vicky Risk
Administrator
Hello BIND users-

ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license (https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/) nearly two decades ago.  ISC is the organizational steward for BIND; in order to preserve the software for the long term, we are considering a move to the more restrictive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/).

The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so most users will not see any change. 

In the event we do proceed with the change in license, we will announce this with the 9.11.0 beta and it will take effect with the BIND 9.11.0 release.

We welcome comments from BIND users, including statements of support or concern.  Email Vicky Risk, Product Manager at [hidden email] if you want to discuss privately, Tweet at us at @ISCdotORG, or discuss on [hidden email].

Regards,

Vicky Risk, 
Product Manager

Jeff Osborn, President of ISC, announcing we are considering this change at RIPE72 in Copenhagen May 26th, https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206.






_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Vicky Risk
Product Manager,
Internet Systems Consortium
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

P Vixie
This is long overdue. I'm all for it. Vixie

On June 13, 2016 10:52:15 PM GMT+02:00, Victoria Risk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello BIND users-

ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license (https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/) nearly two decades ago.  ISC is the organizational steward for BIND; in order to preserve the software for the long term, we are considering a move to the more restrictive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/).

The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so most users will not see any change. 

In the event we do proceed with the change in license, we will announce this with the 9.11.0 beta and it will take effect with the BIND 9.11.0 release.

We welcome comments from BIND users, including statements of support or concern.  Email Vicky Risk, Product Manager at [hidden email] if you want to discuss privately, T weet at us at @ISCdotORG, or discuss on [hidden email].

Regards,

Vicky Risk, 
Product Manager

Jeff Osborn, President of ISC, announcing we are considering this change at RIPE72 in Copenhagen May 26th, https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206.







bind-announce mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-announce

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Dennis Clarke
In reply to this post by Vicky Risk
On 06/13/2016 04:52 PM, Victoria Risk wrote:
 > Hello BIND users-
 >
 > ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license...

Not sure what inspired this change but I suspect that meetings have been
held with legal teams for quite some time. I won't speculate on what
reasons this legal license shift is being taken other than to say a
clear "Thank You" to ISC for amazing work done over many many years. I
don't think there will be much argument from the millions of users that
enjoy code releases of BIND that keeps the entire global internet DNS
infrastructure working.

 >
 > The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has
 > changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the
 > license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without
 > redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so
 > most users will not see any change.

Magnificent.  Also ensures that the implementations of ISC BIND that we
see out in the wild will conform to expected behavior as documented in
the code itself. Those that stray from the expected behavior will now be
documented also.  This is an excellent transition for all involved and
ensures a higher level of quality control on DNS products.

Dennis Clarke

_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Tim Daneliuk
In reply to this post by Vicky Risk
On 06/13/2016 03:52 PM, Victoria Risk wrote:

> Hello BIND users-
>
> ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license <https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/> (https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/) nearly two decades ago.  ISC is the organizational steward for BIND; in order to preserve the software for the long term, we are considering a move to the more restrictive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0) <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/> (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/).
>
> The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so most users will not see any change.
>
> In the event we do proceed with the change in license, we will announce this with the 9.11.0 beta and it will take effect with the BIND 9.11.0 release.
>
> We welcome comments from BIND users, including statements of support or concern.  Email Vicky Risk, Product Manager at [hidden email] if you want to discuss privately, Tweet at us at @ISCdotORG <https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG>, or discuss on [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vicky Risk,
> Product Manager
>
> Jeff Osborn, President of ISC, announcing we are considering this change at RIPE72 in Copenhagen May 26th, https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206.

+1

Long time bind user here and I heartily endorse this.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk     [hidden email]
PGP Key:         http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Vicky Risk
Administrator
In reply to this post by Vicky Risk
>
> What are the underlying reasons for wanting to make this change?

Hi Lars,

As you know, ISC is a non-profit. Our funding comes from software support contracts and small donations from users. We like this model because our funding is aligned with what we see as doing our core job.  

As people opt for versions of BIND from commercial vendors, we lose them as potential support customers, so the pool of people supporting the core project shrinks.  A few commercial vendors do have software support contracts with ISC, which helps, but others neither share their fixes with us nor help support us.  Some of them even market their applications as “BIND, but without the bugs”, and seem not to realize what is wrong with this.  (One commercial vendor told us they would not consider contributing patches because those would help their competitors.)  It seems unfair to those who do support ISC, many of whom are not large or rich organizations themselves, to allow others to profit off of commercializing the open source without sharing anything.  

We can’t ignore this because it is a trend.  Fewer people are willing and able to build from source, perhaps some people prefer graphical tools, and many people with larger installations need management tools and security add-ons that commercial vendors provide. We don’t want to deny anyone these things, but if those applications are built on top of our open source, we want to encourage their vendors to support the core projects.

BIND has been free in every sense for a very long time. During this time, the open source world has evolved.  We no longer need a permissive license in order to encourage reuse of BIND, we need a community-oriented license to encourage contributions to the open source.   This change will not automatically ensure that commercial vendors modifying BIND will support ISC, but it will at least communicate that this would be appropriate.

Vicky
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Vicky Risk
Product Manager,
Internet Systems Consortium
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

John W. Blue
>This change will not automatically ensure that commercial vendors modifying BIND will support ISC, but it will at least communicate that this would be appropriate.

This.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Ted Mittelstaedt
In reply to this post by Vicky Risk

I disagree with this but who am I to stand in the way of the goddam
almighty dollar, you're going to do it anyway regardless of what anyone
says, this comment thing is just window dressing.

I would request that you consider doing one thing before kicking all
the BSD distributions in the teeth, and that is to at least publish
an End-Of-Patch-Release date for BIND 9.10 so that people running
those distros know how much time they have to get it unbundled - and
make sure the patches to the older version don't "accidentally"
fall under the new license.

I know it would be too much to ask that the resolver library at least
stay under BSD license so I won't even bother.

It's a goddam shame that some commercial a-holes out there have to spoil
it for everyone by not kicking back a few bucks of their
ill-gotten gains to you guys.  All I can say is once you have your
shiny new license I'm going to be mighty POed if you don't sue
the pants off the next one of those companies that uses the BIND code
and effs it up to make an example for the rest of them.   BIND but
without the bugs, indeed!   What rot.

That's why we can't have nice things.

Ted


On 6/13/2016 1:52 PM, Victoria Risk wrote:

> Hello BIND users-
>
> ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license
> <https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/>
> (https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/)
> nearly two decades ago. ISC is the organizational steward for BIND; in
> order to preserve the software for the long term, we are considering a
> move to the more restrictive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0)
> <https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/>
> (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/).
>
> The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has
> changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the
> license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without
> redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so
> most users will not see any change.
>
> In the event we do proceed with the change in license, we will announce
> this with the 9.11.0 beta and it will take effect with the BIND 9.11.0
> release.
>
> We welcome comments from BIND users, including statements of support or
> concern. Email Vicky Risk, Product Manager at [hidden email] if you want
> to discuss privately, Tweet at us at @ISCdotORG
> <https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG>, or discuss on [hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vicky Risk,
> Product Manager
>
> Jeff Osborn, President of ISC, announcing we are considering this change
> at RIPE72 in Copenhagen May 26th,
> https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Evan Hunt
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:10:16AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> I disagree with this but who am I to stand in the way of the goddam
> almighty dollar, you're going to do it anyway regardless of what anyone
> says, this comment thing is just window dressing.
>
> I would request that you consider doing one thing before kicking all
> the BSD distributions in the teeth, and that is to at least publish
> an End-Of-Patch-Release date for BIND 9.10 so that people running
> those distros know how much time they have to get it unbundled - and
> make sure the patches to the older version don't "accidentally"
> fall under the new license.

May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?  So far the distros
have all been supportive.

The ISC license (which is very slightly modified BSD) is less encumbered
than the MPL, in the sense that people are allowed to commercialize a
closed-source version of the code without giving anything back to the
project, whereas the MPL would require such people to contribute - either
financially or by submitting patches.  From an end-user perspective, I'm
not sure how it makes a difference.  Even from a commercial perspective,
the additional burden shouldn't be huge.  Is there a problem we're not
seeing?  If so, please elaborate so the concern can be addressed.

> I know it would be too much to ask that the resolver library at least
> stay under BSD license so I won't even bother.

If you mean libresolv, that's not part of BIND any longer. The
version that was formerly maintained by ISC is now part of the NetBSD
project, I believe.

> It's a goddam shame that some commercial a-holes out there have to spoil
> it for everyone by not kicking back a few bucks of their
> ill-gotten gains to you guys.  All I can say is once you have your
> shiny new license I'm going to be mighty POed if you don't sue
> the pants off the next one of those companies that uses the BIND code
> and effs it up to make an example for the rest of them.   BIND but
> without the bugs, indeed!   What rot.

--
Evan Hunt -- [hidden email]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

bert hubert
In reply to this post by P Vixie
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 08:57:02PM +0000, P Vixie wrote:
> This is long overdue. I'm all for it. Vixie

For what it is worth, as open source fellow travellers we discussed this
earlier both with Vicky and Paul, and we are in strong agreement with this
measure to increase the sustainability of great open source development.


        Bert
        On behalf of PowerDNS

>
> On June 13, 2016 10:52:15 PM GMT+02:00, Victoria Risk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >Hello BIND users-
> >
> >ISC published BIND under a very permissive open source license
> ><https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/>
> >(https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/
> ><https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/>)
> >nearly two decades ago.  ISC is the organizational steward for BIND; in
> >order to preserve the software for the long term, we are considering a
> >move to the more restrictive Mozilla Public License (MPL 2.0)
> ><https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/>
> >(https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/
> ><https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/>).
> >
> >The MPL license requires that anyone redistributing the code who has
> >changed it must publish their changes (or pay for an exception to the
> >license). It doesn’t impact anyone who is using the software without
> >redistributing it, nor anyone redistributing it without changes – so
> >most users will not see any change.
> >
> >In the event we do proceed with the change in license, we will announce
> >this with the 9.11.0 beta and it will take effect with the BIND 9.11.0
> >release.
> >
> >We welcome comments from BIND users, including statements of support or
> >concern.  Email Vicky Risk, Product Manager at [hidden email]
> ><mailto:[hidden email]> if you want to discuss privately, Tweet at us at
> >@ISCdotORG <https://twitter.com/ISCdotORG>, or discuss on
> >[hidden email].
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Vicky Risk,
> >Product Manager
> >
> >Jeff Osborn, President of ISC, announcing we are considering this
> >change at RIPE72 in Copenhagen May 26th,
> >https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206
> ><https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/206>.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >bind-announce mailing list
> >[hidden email]
> >https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-announce
>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Ted Mittelstaedt
In reply to this post by Evan Hunt


On 6/14/2016 10:45 AM, Evan Hunt wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:10:16AM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> I disagree with this but who am I to stand in the way of the goddam
>> almighty dollar, you're going to do it anyway regardless of what anyone
>> says, this comment thing is just window dressing.
>>
>> I would request that you consider doing one thing before kicking all
>> the BSD distributions in the teeth, and that is to at least publish
>> an End-Of-Patch-Release date for BIND 9.10 so that people running
>> those distros know how much time they have to get it unbundled - and
>> make sure the patches to the older version don't "accidentally"
>> fall under the new license.
>
> May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?

As I said already, the reason why is because it's a goddam shame that
some commercial a-holes out there have to spoil it for everyone by not
kicking back a few bucks of their ill-gotten gains to you guys.  (ISC)

That's why.   If that doesn't explain it, then you are just looking to
argue license religion and justify a choice you already made, and I
can't help you with that.

Ted
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

PGNet Dev
> If that doesn't explain it, then you are just looking to
> argue license religion and justify a choice you already made,

Or, we're just left scratching our heads wondering what the ranting is about.

Seems like there are lots on this list who practice no such religion,
and actually find this one of the more reasoned communications about
license changes.

And, TBH, would've been even interested in reasoned, legitimate
commentary from you.

> and I can't help you with that.

Clear enough. Back to reasonable discussion.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Mukund Sivaraman
In reply to this post by Evan Hunt
Hi Evan

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:45:59PM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
> May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?  So far the distros
> have all been supportive.

The BSD camp dislikes copyleft because copyleft prevents exactly what
we're trying to stop: the ability to ship a closed-source forked version
of BIND. They think that software is more free if that is allowed,
although they'd like all software to be free.

The GNU/FSF camp's view is different. In its view, a software is more
free if its freedom is protected and cannot be lost; hence the copyleft
clauses.

To a user of BIND, it makes no difference. To a restributor of BIND who
keeps the modified code free, it makes no difference. Those who are hurt
by it are those who are shipping closed-source modified versions, or
those who'd like to let others continue to do so.

                Mukund

_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Keith Christian
In reply to this post by PGNet Dev
(Sorry if this ends up on the list twice, did not send to "bind-users"
the first time.)

Is there any reason not to use a GPL license, which requires that
changes be shared back with the user community?

Keith
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Ted Mittelstaedt

It seems some on the list are short on philosophy?  Well here is
the actual philosophy and I'll apologize in advance that it won't fit
in a SMS message for those people unable to have deep thoughts more
complex than a SMS message.   Hopefully you are not one of them.

You are asking about GPL but ISC didn't say they wanted to use GPL they
said MPL, but I will frame my explanation in GPL terms since it is quite
clear that you are coming from "all the world's a GPL" perspective.

"free" means free as in free beer.  RMS has done a lot of damage
over the years warping the idea of free software to fit his agenda
and that should have become obvious after GPL v3.  (and indeed it
HAS become obvious to a great many people)

Nevertheless the damage has been done, even though licenses like
Mozilla MPL try to retreat from the militancy of RMS to "strike a
middle ground"

In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.  Some of
those uses may irritate you or disgust you but they have to be allowed
or it is NOT free.  Imagine for example if the people who invented
photography had insisted that it only be used to "take nice pleasant
pictures"

Otherwise you are simply subscribing to the RMS's idea of "free" as
in "free like I say so in GPL" without even realizing it.   The argument
is lost before it is even made because you, Keith Christian, have
unconsciously already accepted a definition of "free" that is NOWHERE
in the dictionary and have unconsciously accepted RMS's redefinition
of the word "free" in software to mean "free except for this and that
and this and that".

People read books like 1984 and think "no way that could happen" but
here it is, it's already happened and you don't even see it.

Now, I get that damage can be done by certain jerks out there who take
BIND code, modify it so it is not compatible with other BIND, then
release it into the wild as "BIND with the bugs removed" or whatever
other odious name they can dream up.   I get that certain large
commercial orgs who are making more money in 5 seconds than I'll ever
see in my lifetime due to BIND code should be helping out the hand that
feeds them.  And I also get that a bunch of RMS apologists out there
are trying to remove the word "free" from free software because they
are feeling guilty about their Orwellian tactics which have apparently
succeeded with a lot of software developers who should be intelligent
enough to know they are being played.

But, there are other ways than changing the license so you can make
legal threats against those jerks to protect your software.   For
starters, public shaming works pretty damn well - and as a benefit it
helps out countless of admins out there making product decisions of what
to purchase, when ISC makes a public statement saying "brandX included
BIND code but they are lying like dogs when they say their stuff is
compatible with BIND"   or "BrandY has made 100 million bucks off our
stuff and never given us a nickle let alone kicked any code back"

If ISC's sole purpose to move to Mozilla is to "protect the purity and
integrity of BIND" or whatever whitewash, and their intent is to do it
by applying a license then using legal threats behind closed doors to
the commercial offenders out there who are screwing up their stuff, they
are simply allowing those offenders to continue to make money by
hoodwinking the public with their products, because while all this is
happening behind closed doors, the public is still buying the stuff.
Worse, because ISC is following the "get the lawyers in a smoke-filled
room to cut a deal" route, for all we know ISC is signing off on
permitting BrandX to continue to contaminate the DNS system with their
recompiled version of BIND that is non-standard, in exchange for filthy
lucre and a promise to fix it in the next Windows Service Pack (oops,
did I say that?)

Licenses are licenses and people can write up whatever license they
want.  My objection is this continued Orwellian GPL BS of claiming you
are making software free by restricting it.  And a lot of other
people agree or ISC would just stick it under GPL instead of MPL.   The
sad part is that the entire discussion has been moved to use terms that
GPL people have redefined, and as a result a superficial discussion
or comment (like has been thrown up so far on this) always ends up
with GPL or GPL-approach licenses (like MPL) winning the discussion.

There is a famous line used to illustrate how redefining terms can
always cause one side to win, it is "have you stopped beating your
wife yet"  That is what has gone on in free software licensing with GPL
and it's just a shame to see so many people sign off on that with
thunderous applause without even realizing what has been taken from them.


Ted




On 6/14/2016 11:48 AM, Keith Christian wrote:

> (Sorry if this ends up on the list twice, did not send to "bind-users"
> the first time.)
>
> Is there any reason not to use a GPL license, which requires that
> changes be shared back with the user community?
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list
>
> bind-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Evan Hunt
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:38:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
> piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
> idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.

Thank you for the explanation.

As I undesrtand it, commercial entities *will* be able to use BIND as they
see fit, even if the relicensing goes ahead.  Share bug fixes back, or get
a support contract, and we're good.  We really just want everybody to be a
mensch about it.

On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/

--
Evan Hunt -- [hidden email]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Evan Hunt
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:06:55PM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
> On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
> relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
> think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
> terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
> encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
> it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
> bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/

(In case it wasn't absolutely clear, I don't speak for ISC; the above
is purely me.)

--
Evan Hunt -- [hidden email]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Mukund Sivaraman
In reply to this post by Evan Hunt
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:06:55PM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:38:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
> > piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
> > idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.
>
> Thank you for the explanation.
>
> As I undesrtand it, commercial entities *will* be able to use BIND as they
> see fit, even if the relicensing goes ahead.  Share bug fixes back, or get
> a support contract, and we're good.  We really just want everybody to be a
> mensch about it.
>
> On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
> relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
> think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
> terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
> encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
> it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
> bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/
This last sentence sums it up well.

There's been quite some internal discussion about the license change,
which is not a lightly attempted and achieved endeavour, and the
discussion is still continuing. There seems to be some public anger at
such a license change, but it is misdirected. Be angry for us, not at
us. We care deeply about BIND's users, the DNS and DNS users in general
(if you have any doubt about that, look at communication with ISC staff,
even if it is with a member of staff from a company that's shipping a
closed fork of BIND, or even another DNS implementation).

In reality, the world is not perfect as we expect it to be, or we would
not have to attempt this license change. It is a means to an end, for
the goal that we most care about which is to make BIND and the DNS
better and have BIND available to everyone to use, modify.

Your anger is misdirected when you say things like "kicking all BSD
distributions in the teeth". That's not what we're thinking of.

(also speaking for myself, not ISC.)

                Mukund

_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users

signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Ted Mittelstaedt


On 6/14/2016 1:42 PM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 08:06:55PM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:38:14PM -0700, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>> In reality, there IS no "middle ground"   If you truly believe a
>>> piece of software SHOULD be freely licensed, then that includes the
>>> idea that commercial entities can use it as they see fit.
>>
>> Thank you for the explanation.
>>
>> As I undesrtand it, commercial entities *will* be able to use BIND as they
>> see fit, even if the relicensing goes ahead.  Share bug fixes back, or get
>> a support contract, and we're good.  We really just want everybody to be a
>> mensch about it.
>>
>> On a personal level, I actually agree with you, and I find the idea of
>> relicensing somewhat regrettable.  It's not that I'm against the GPL, I
>> think software creators should be able to share their work on whatever
>> terms they like, but *personally* I like giving my stuff away with as few
>> encumbrances as possible.  It's disappointing to me to add any burden to
>> it at all.  I do like eating, though, and I won't be able to fix as many
>> bugs if I have to stop doing that. :/
>
> This last sentence sums it up well.
>
> There's been quite some internal discussion about the license change,
> which is not a lightly attempted and achieved endeavour, and the
> discussion is still continuing. There seems to be some public anger at
> such a license change, but it is misdirected. Be angry for us, not at
> us. We care deeply about BIND's users, the DNS and DNS users in general
> (if you have any doubt about that, look at communication with ISC staff,
> even if it is with a member of staff from a company that's shipping a
> closed fork of BIND, or even another DNS implementation).
>
> In reality, the world is not perfect as we expect it to be, or we would
> not have to attempt this license change. It is a means to an end, for
> the goal that we most care about which is to make BIND and the DNS
> better and have BIND available to everyone to use, modify.
>
> Your anger is misdirected when you say things like "kicking all BSD
> distributions in the teeth". That's not what we're thinking of.
>

BIND occupies a unique position in the Internet - there is no law that
compels people to use DNS nor the root nameservers.  In fact nothing
prohibits Internet users using name resolution from using a completely
alien mechanism from DNS.  And, before 1983, THEY DID.

Of all the Internet standards DNS is probably the one that the most
Internet users VOLUNTARILY choose to use.

In an ideal world, the major beneficiaries of the Internet would
equally share in funding BIND and BIND would have no license
restrictions at all, and the ISC would not feel compelled to do this.
(or to fork the code and rename it after a doofus on the TV show
Married With Children)

I see nothing to celebrate here.  This is a wake.  Just in the name
of the spirit of openness and freedom, once you have your new release
out there under the license, sic the legal people on the a-holes who
have been abusing it, starting with the "BIND without the bugs" people,
whoever they are, as they are the ones who caused this to happen.


Ted

> (also speaking for myself, not ISC.)
>
> Mukund
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Ted Mittelstaedt
In reply to this post by Mukund Sivaraman


On 6/14/2016 11:47 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:

> Hi Evan
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:45:59PM +0000, Evan Hunt wrote:
>> May I ask you to expand on why the MPL is a problem?  So far the distros
>> have all been supportive.
>
> The BSD camp dislikes copyleft because copyleft prevents exactly what
> we're trying to stop: the ability to ship a closed-source forked version
> of BIND. They think that software is more free if that is allowed,
> although they'd like all software to be free.
>
> The GNU/FSF camp's view is different. In its view, a software is more
> free if its freedom is protected and cannot be lost; hence the copyleft
> clauses.
>
> To a user of BIND, it makes no difference. To a restributor of BIND who
> keeps the modified code free, it makes no difference. Those who are hurt
> by it are those who are shipping closed-source modified versions, or
> those who'd like to let others continue to do so.
>

 From a practical perspective virtually anyone shipping a commercial
program with modified BIND in it is almost certainly shipping an
embedded device of some sort - a NAS or something - and they won't be
hurt in their current product since they just won't update them.

And if they treat ISC that shabbily then how do you think they are
treating their customers - they will certainly continue to
use that older, non-copyleft version as long as it compiles.

It may be years before some of those commercial people update
their code - a license change now is not going to have immediate
effect.   Eventually one of these days the maker of
whatever CPU they are using will stop production and release a new
version with a new compiler toolkit and then they might update.

Also, has ISC realized that they just got on the biggest soapbox
they have and shouted to the world:

HEY PEEPS WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE RELEASING NEW VERSIONS OF BIND 9
SINCE WE CARE ENOUGH ABOUT IT TO MPL IT - WE HAVE FUTURE PLANS HERE

That's very good for most people but I think they just killed BIND 10.

Ted
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ISC considering a change to the BIND open source license

Noel Butler
In reply to this post by Ted Mittelstaedt
On 15/06/2016 05:38, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> It seems some on the list are short on philosophy?  Well here is
> the actual philosophy and I'll apologize in advance that it won't fit
> in a SMS message for those people unable to have deep thoughts more
> complex than a SMS message.   Hopefully you are not one of them.
>

I guess we can read this as you are, or are related to, one of these
commercial entities that are not playing nice... There is absolutely no
other reason one would be so dead against it as you are.

I have no doubt (just like spammers say what they do aint spamming) that
you will use extreme energy to disagree, dispute or despise, as one
famous actor once said " frankly, I dont give a damn"

--
If you have the urge to reply to all rather than reply to list, you best
first read  http://members.ausics.net/qwerty/
_______________________________________________
Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list

bind-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
12