change to DCC license

Jeff Mincy mincy@rcn.com
Wed Sep 19 23:00:02 UTC 2007


   From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com>
   Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:42:43 GMT
   
   > From: Jeff Mincy <mincy@rcn.com>
   
   > I'd prefer that the name of the 'improved' repackaged versions with
   > minor changes be based on DCC with a different suffix or prefix.
   > Fewer buzzwords and easier to evaluate.
   
   In theory that would work fine, but practice differs.  How would you
   evaluate the difference between my code and the repackaged version of
   my code based only on name suffixes and prefixes?  It's like the
   newfangled definition of "chocolate" that is distinguished from the
   real thing by a suffix or prefix and the fact that it contains lard or
   some other oil unrelated to cocoa beans.  If you know and care enough
   about the internal details, you won't notice the name or any suffixes
   or prefixes.  If you don't care, you still won't notice them.
   
Sorry I wasn't clear.  I don't want to run across something calling itself
SSS (Super Spam Solution, which could be anything) only to figure out
later that it is a modified DCC.  I agree that the 'improved' versions
should have a different name.  The name is useful for deciding to look at
it in more detail.  The name is not going to help that much when looking
at the different version in more detail, although it should give some idea
where the significant differences should be.

I'm not sure if the standard Debian/Ubuntu/Redhat type repackagings
should count or not.

   > Also, shouldn't there be restrictions on modified versions sharing
   > checksums with the DCC network?

   Perhaps, but I don't understand how to state them.

I was thinking about modified checksums affecting the rest of the DCC
network.   On second thought this isn't all that likely since any changes
to the checksum would affect the results.

   > Out of curiosity, what are some of the improvements?
   
   As far as I know, the changes in the repackaged and redistributed versions
   consist only of
     - security improvements..
     - configuration changes...
     - cherry-picked changes...

Ok - thanks.

   A characteristic of the syndrome is
   that I *never* hear about improvements directly from those who make and
   advocate them.  I *always* hear indirectly.  No matter what you think
   of me or my reaction to your improvements, wouldn't it make sense to
   mention them here as you redistribute them?
   
Could something along these lines be made part of the license?  Eg if
you redistribute a modified DCC you must send an announcement.

-jeff



More information about the DCC mailing list

Contact vjs@rhyolite.com by mail or use the form.