Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480724 Rick Moen <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #27 from Rick Moen <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-06 17:22:15 EDT --- My thanks to Prasad for working on this. 1. Did I miss a trick during software build, or does Prasad's tarball Makefile so far build/install only dnscache, and not the six other binaries? (I've not looked closely; I just did ./configure; make; make install.) 2. From a very quick glance, I think Prasad has not yet applied quite a number of patches often recommended to fix djbdns and bring it up to current standards -- some of those fixing significant security issues. I have a list at http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Network_Other/dns-servers.html#djbdns-patches , and link to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's and tinydns.org's separate pages. 3. It would be good if you could work with Mark Johnson (zinq-djbdns) and Gerrit Pape (Debian djbdns/dbndns). Although Dan is finally talking about an 1.06 version solely to fix the recent AXFR security problem, it seems highly likely that he'll ignore most other fixes, notably those he is known to dislike (e.g., FHS, GNU make-tools, system headers, manpages, IPv6, default dependency on ucspi-tcp and daemontools). So, a robust upstream elsewhere is crucial. 4. I applaud the measures Prasad is taking and says he'll take to make sure Dan's role remains properly credited and that people can find the non-copylefted upstream source if they want it. I second Mark Johnson in strongly suggesting care to credit other prior contributors, irrespective of obligation. 5. While wishing to avoid licence discussion here, I'll point out that "public domain" dedications have known legal problems albeit Dan's is probably good enough in context. My analysis: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/public-domain.html Perhaps Red Hat Legal should be consulted, though. (Whether his purporting to do that actually has the intended legal effect is subject to some doubt. Tom, yes, Dan does "understand" the portion of the law that he wants to acknowledge, but he's selective in what he acknowledges, and argues rather illogically with genuine experts like Larry Rosen when they say things he finds convenient.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review