[NCLUG] New linux server
Fri, 1 Feb 2002 10:15:59 -0800
I'm not ordinarily on this mailing list, and don't currently plan to
Quoting J. Paul Reed (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>> Oh, and your linking to Rick Moen's ravings about qmail really doesn't do
>> anything for me. Dan's response to that page is:
> I've read DJB's response, and (surprise surprise), it's not doing it for
> me, either.
Dan's response, unfortunately, in addition to consisting chiefly of
personal abuse (which we can ignore) also misrepresents what I had said.
For that reason, I was eventually obliged to create a follow-on
mini-essay, http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#djb2 :
Q: Are you saying that DJB can revoke the licence to
his software by changing or removing his Web pages?
No, of course not. The prior essay
(http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/#djb) nowhere states
or implies that, nor does anything else I've said, Prof. Bernstein's
assertions (http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html) notwithstanding.
The fact that the tarballs of qmail and djbdns/tinydns for which
Bernstein permits redistribution may not include copies of his
generous (if proprietary) licence terms, together with his
restrictions on mirroring of those licence terms, make it very
awkward to independently and lastingly document his licence terms
and your compliance with them. Not impossible, just very, very
awkward -- one of the many hassles with Bernstein software that, in
my view, make it not worth the trouble. The covered software itself
may -- by those licence terms, be redistributed, in unmodified form,
to anyone. In perpetuity.
Some of the other hassles inherent in Bernstein's software are
eloquently listed by my friend J. Paul Reed in a user group post
(though his point "c" about licensing was in error on points
My aim was and is, of course, to clarify the issues (as well as to
express my personal view). Which is true of items on the "rants"
page generally -- other than the humour ones. Some people take
exception to this (e.g., DJB's legal threats); that's their problem, and
they can bloody well put up their own Web pages that serve their needs
However, at _least_ I've garnered a possibly unique distinction from
Prof. Bernstein's reaction: I'm now the only person I'm aware of who's
referred to by name in a major software licence. ;->
>> Based on the discussions I've had with Rick, I'd have to agree with DJB
>> here... Rick was part of the reason I did the benchmarking of the IDE
>> versus SCSI drives which I posted about last month.
> That discussion is really unrelated to this one; I don't know why you bring
> it up. You're attacking Rick's character, which has nothing to do with
> this discussion, and (shouldn't) have anything to do with your argument.
> But since you did, the fact that you point it out shows what DJB should of
> done instead of saying "look at the monkey over here... here... see the
> monkey..." instead of answering Rick's (legitimate and honestly posed)
> People make mistakes, and you proved him wrong.
You and Sean Reifschneider seem to be making references to a brief
discussion last year on Don Marti's private mailing list that existed
among us authors of the _Linux Journal_ Ultimate Linux Box article. Mr.
Reifschneider was NOT on the mailing list, but started being CC'd when
ESR, in a moment of lunacy, began copying him on some list posts.
When I had time, I replied to those posts, with a lengthy recounting
of why particular of Mr. Reifschneider's factual assertions lay
variously along the line between doubtful and obviously mistaken.
He responded to this with a lot of non-responsive passive-aggressive
objections to me, gratuitously taking personal offence instead of
replying to the substance. I attempted a couple of times to steer
conversation back onto substantive points, but Mr. Reifschneider
continued to throw tantrums, and so I gave it up and killfiled him,
where he remains.
All of the other list-members seemed equally disgusted as I at the
entire incident, so the thread died. And I _believe_ that the list
was immediately adjusted to be postable by subscribers only, to
prevent such things recurring.
Naturally, since all of that occurred on a private mailing list, I
never (previously) attempted to pursue the matter in unrelated forums,
or attempt to tell tales about it. That would be a breach of
netiquette, and tacky.
I'm making this brief exception because, of course, it appears that
Mr. Reifschneider has been living up to my expectations, and telling
scurrilous tall tales about the conversation behind my back to LUGs.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
It is very much NOT, in any event, the case that Mr. Reifschneider
"proved me wrong". All he proved was that I would be wasting my time
with further conversation, and that attempting same in the first place
was a judgement error. (He can, of course, go to town at this matter on
NCLUG without fear of contradiction, because he's firmly cemented into
my ~/.procmail/rc.twit, never to emerge -- and please DO NOT forward his
comments to get around that, because I don't want to see them. Thanks.)
This of course doesn't mean I don't want to hear from _you_, Paul.
That part is always a pleasure. Just not from the other guy, who's
wasted too much of my time already.
Cheers, "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first
Rick Moen woman she meets, and then teams up with three complete strangers
email@example.com to kill again." -- Rick Polito's That TV Guy column,
describing the movie _The Wizard of Oz_