Re: *URGENT* ftpparse licensing issue

Russ,

The "License" in question is this:

-----------------------------------------
/* ftpparse.c, ftpparse.h: library for parsing FTP LIST responses
D. J. Bernstein, [email protected]
19970712 (doc updated 19970810)
Commercial use is fine, if you let me know what programs you're using
this in.

Currently covered:
EPLF.
UNIX ls, with or without gid.
Microsoft FTP Service.
Windows NT FTP Server.
VMS.
WFTPD (DOS).
NetPresenz (Mac).
NetWare.

Definitely not covered:
Long VMS filenames, with information split across two lines.
NCSA Telnet FTP server. Has LIST = NLST (and bad NLST for directories).

Written for maximum portability, but tested only under UNIX so far.
*/
----------------------------------------

The whole controversy is "Commercial use is fine, if you let me know
what programs you're using this in."  I was harassed endlessly by the
Debian "maintainer" for Prozilla a while back.  That's how I came to be
subscribed to this list...

Sean


Russ Allbery wrote:
> Casey Allen Shobe <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> 
>>Who besides Debian users, who have chosen by the act of using Debian to
>>exclude themselves from the evils of GPL-incompatibility and thus should
>>understand that they will not be able to use all software and will run
>>into these problems time and time again, cares?
> 
> 
> Debian does not exclude software which is not GPL-compatible.  The
> previous poster was mistaken.  Quite a bit of GPL-incompatible software is
> in Debian (OpenAFS, for instance).  Debian only excludes software that
> does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which ftpparse
> uncontroversially is (djb does not grant any permission, at least that
> I've seen, to distribute modified versions).
> 
> The way in which the original request was phrased was very unfortunate and
> highly unlikely to result in anything other than the flames that did
> result.  Really, ftpparse is just something that Debian isn't going to be
> willing to distribute except as part of non-free.  There are various
> reasons for that that people are going to agree with or not, and there's
> little to no point in arguing about any of them since we've all heard them
> and we've all individually made up our minds.
> 
> I've never seen any sign that djb was interested in changing any of his
> licensing, so I would have recommended that the original poster not have
> wasted their time asking.
> 
> 
>>It's not acceptable to proclaim to various authors of respected software
>>that their product must be relicensed, and NOW.
> 
> 
> I agree.
>