Re: posible bug in daemontools

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Laurent Bercot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> How else would you suggest I state the copyright status and
>> redistribution terms?
>
>  Do what you want: it's your software. But I'd advise to KISS, even for
> the non-technical parts. Just have a LICENSE file or something, that
> states factually, coldly, the copyright status and redistribution terms,
> in words a nosy lawyer couldn't find anything to mumble about.

That's what I thought I was doing.  I suppose I'm the only one that
gets the joke and appreciates the humour, though.  So that will
probably come out in future releases.

>> How, exactly, have I been disrespectful?
>
>  Disrespectful is a strong word. But the message I sent on the list
> when you started happily patching djbdns could be a starting point
> for what I think Chris means.

You'll note that, to this day, I have not shipped the changes you
objected to in that message.  That doesn't necessarily mean I agree
with your viewpoint.  Only that you did succeed in adding to an
already established paranoia about breaking something.

>  Your autoconfifying zinq-djbdns shows that you didn't try to understand
> why DJB chose to not use autoconf. (Or you tried and disagreed, which
> is another thing, but if you're interested in quality code, I can't see
> how you could disagree. XD)

I did actually.  From what I can tell, he's possibly been writing Unix
software longer than autoconf has existed.  Charles Cazabon pointed
out to me the only mention he's made of autoconf that I've seen:

http://marc.info/?l=djbdns&m=123193830516873&w=2

>  Now do you understand how going ahead and forking djbware (and I
> mean *distributing* software, I don't care what people do at home, of
> course) without the utmost prudence can be seen as disrespectful?

Not really.  I think the best we're going to be able to achieve here,
however, is to agree to disagree and respect each other's viewpoints
as best we can.