BIND covered under which license and does it conatin any cryptographic content ?
Lulu
I unable to confirm about licensing of BIND9 in other words bind9
covered under which license. IN the site I found a line written about
license is that
"BIND is available at no charge under the BSD License"
Secondly the source tar ball contain no separate file called License
rather a COPYRIGHT file is there but it says nothing about BSD there
like whether it is 2 clause, 3 clause or anything else.
Thirdly in wikipedia I found BIND9 covered under ISC license which is
functionally equivalent to BSD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_licence
1. So can anyone shed some light on this?
2. Does this software contain any Cryptographic Content? if yes where
I can find all the the type and key size of all cryptographic
software included? and
3. how it is used?
Stephane Bortzmeyer
Lulu <neoe...@gmail.com> wrote
> I unable to confirm about licensing of BIND9 in other words bind9
> covered under which license.
Warning 1: IANAL
Warning 2: I do not work for ISC and I wrote zero line of code in BIND
> IN the site I found a line written about license is that "BIND is
> available at no charge under the BSD License"
It seems a small error. While ISC license is a 2-clause BSD, I do not
think that many people call "BSD" a license which is not the 3-clause
or the 4-clause one.
> Secondly the source tar ball contain no separate file called License
> rather a COPYRIGHT file is there but it says nothing about BSD there
> like whether it is 2 clause, 3 clause or anything else.
[It is clearly the authoritative information. A Web page, even hosted
at ISC, carries less weight.]
In practice, ISC license is a BSD, with the third clause ("Neither the
name of the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be
used to endorse...") removed.
> Thirdly in wikipedia I found BIND9 covered under ISC license which is
> functionally equivalent to BSD.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_licence
It seems a fair description. Do note that ISC does not seem to use the
name "ISC license".
And why do some people write licence with a c and some with a s?
Roland Dirlewanger
>
>
>
> And why do some people write licence with a c and some with a s?
>
I'm far from being an expert in Engish's etimology, but with a little
help of a dictionary, It seems that the English word "licence" comes
from the word "licence" which appeared in the French language in the
XIIth century.
When it crossed the Channel, the noun "licence" was kept unchanged, but
strangely enough, the verb made out of it became "to license". Some time
later, when both words crossed the Atlantic, some kind of simplification
was made and both noun and verb became spelled the same way.
Thus "the licence" is UK English, "the license" is US English.
Roland.
--
Roland Dirlewanger <Roland.Di...@dr15.cnrs.fr>
CNRS - Delegation Aquitaine-Limousin
Esplanade des Arts et Metiers
33402 TALENCE CEDEX
Tel : 05.57.35.58.52, Fax : 05.57.35.58.01
Jeff Lightner
Revolution when Mr. Webster published his dictionary he purposefully
changed the spelling of many words to "Americanize" them in an attempt
to further separate "The Colonies" from "The King's English" to
reinforce the fact we were now independent "States". This is also why
we spell "color" instead of "colour" and various other differences.
Most people here don't really care about the separation any more but
since the spelling used is taught early on we continue to use them that
way.
Interestingly I once had a UK manager challenge me on my use of "insure"
rather than "ensure". There is an entire article about the use of
those words that shows both are proper in either American or UK English
and it is only custom that determines which side of the Atlantic uses
which word in which context. After sending that on to him he told me
he'd never challenge my use of words again. :-)
P.S. In neither UK nor American English is "contain" spelled "conatin"
:p
Stephane Bortzmeyer
Jeff Lightner <jlig...@water.com> wrote
> After the American Revolution when Mr. Webster published his
> dictionary he purposefully changed the spelling of many words to
> "Americanize" them in an attempt to further separate "The Colonies"
> from "The King's English" to reinforce the fact we were now
> independent "States".
Anyway, the current maintainer of BIND lives in Australia so there is
may be a third orthography? :-)
Paul Vixie
> > available at no charge under the BSD License"
>
> It seems a small error. While ISC license is a 2-clause BSD, I do not
> think that many people call "BSD" a license which is not the 3-clause
> or the 4-clause one.
the BSD license was exactly like ISC's is now, when we first copied it.
in the years since then the UC Regents have thought about things like
advertising and have added and deleted various clauses. ISC hasn't
thought about that stuff, and the original BSD license is just fine for
our needs.
> In practice, ISC license is a BSD, with the third clause ("Neither the
> name of the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be
> used to endorse...") removed.
well, yes, except that those were added after our license fork, and were
never present here, and were never deleted here. we probably started with
the 4.2BSD license. alas, i do not have the 4.2BSD sources, nor any system
running that code where i can look at /usr/include for an example. anybody?
(it's also dimly possible that we forked an old MIT X license, which was at
that time identical to the BSD license, and may well still be for all i know.)
> > Thirdly in wikipedia I found BIND9 covered under ISC license which is
> > functionally equivalent to BSD.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_licence
>
> It seems a fair description.
odd that they got the names wrong. ISC at the time this license was forked
was "internet software consortium". today's "internet systems consortium" is
the successor-in-interest to the old "internet software consortium" but the
name of the entity who forked this license is the old name not the new name.
that wikipedia entry also refers to an FSF question, which turned up some
interesting ugliness with the word "and" in the first sentence, as abused by
somebody in some other project. we're going to say "and/or" from now on, to
remove any possible concern or confusion about what we meant by "and". i
hate this kind of thing, it reminds me that lawyers used to get paid by the
word. "never use two words when one will." and so on.
> And why do some people write licence with a c and some with a s?
depends on which side of the road you drive on, i guess.
--
Paul Vixie
Paul Vixie
> Anyway, the current maintainer of BIND lives in Australia so there is
> may be a third orthography? :-)
with all due respect to marka, who is a true hero of the revolution, the
current maintainer of BIND is a california corporation (though incorporated
in delaware.)
--
Paul Vixie
Mark Andrews
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark_A...@isc.org
Danny Mayer
> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> And why do some people write licence with a c and some with a s?
>>
> help of a dictionary, It seems that the English word "licence" comes
> from the word "licence" which appeared in the French language in the
> XIIth century.
>
> When it crossed the Channel, the noun "licence" was kept unchanged, but
> strangely enough, the verb made out of it became "to license". Some time
> later, when both words crossed the Atlantic, some kind of simplification
> was made and both noun and verb became spelled the same way.
>
> Thus "the licence" is UK English, "the license" is US English.
>
> Roland.
For extra credit, guess what an off-licence is in the UK.
Danny