change to DCC license

Vernon Schryver wrote:
> After yet another go around with repackagers of the free version
> of the DCC source who insist on break--er--improving it and then
> distributing their version under my name, I'm thinking of changing
> the license to say:
> 
>  * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software without
>  * changes for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided 
>  * that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all 
>  * copies and any distributed versions or copies are either unchanged
>  * or not called anything similar to "DCC" or "Distributed Checksum 
>  * Clearinghouse".
> 
> What do you think?

That could be a problem for me. What do you mean by '(un)changed'? If it 
excludes simple packaging, I will be unable to upgrade our servers. 
We're using RedHat Linux as a corporate standard and we don't have 
development tools installed on production systems. I have to at least 
create RPM if I don't want to mess up with manually copying tar archives 
of compiled bineries. Or to make a mess in a central RPM repository by 
adding some weird package name instead of DCC.

I understand your frustration, but I think this approach would create a 
confusion and at the end won't help anybody.

-- 
***********************************************************************
Pavel Urban (pavel.urban (at) o2.com)
O2 system disaster
Telefonica O2 Czech Republic, a.s. - www.cz.o2.com
***********************************************************************
    Vegetables should not operate electronic equipment.
           Computer Stupidities, http://rinkworks.com/stupid/
***********************************************************************