sshd. "UseDNS no" ignored?

[Chuck Swiger]

On Dec 1, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Dmitry Pryanishnikov wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>>>   And I didn't say that it's the OSI Open Source. I wrote "(which  
>>> is also open-source)", not even "Open Source". So I didn't mean  
>>> that you can just copy&paste their sources into OpenSSH.  [ ... ]
>> I'd really prefer that people not claim a license is "open source"  
>> without submitting their license for consideration to the OSI  
>> board via the <license-discuss at opensource.org> mailing list, and  
>> having it be approved.
>
>  Just 2 points:
>
>  1) I _didn't_ "claim a license is "open source"". My point is
>     that all sources of the product are open to your eyes.
>     No more, but no less.

On Nov 29, did you not say:

"I'm still wondering why OpenSSH is _so_ inferior to SSH.COM's ssh2  
(which is also open-source)?"...?

David Adam then asked "Is it really open-source?"; while you  
responded to this question, your answer was misleading.  The  
commercial version of SSH publishes their source code, but that  
source code is not usable by many people because of the restriction  
against commercial use.  Specifically, the answer to the question  
David asked is "no": the F-Secure/SSH Communications version of SSH  
is not "OSI Open Source", per OSD #6.

>  2) We _aren't_ in @opensource.org mailing list hierarchy - it's  
> FreeBSD
>     maillist, and I hope I'm free to _not_ submit anything to  
> opensource.org's
>     consideration, and just to express my opinion instead.

While you are free to have an opinion about factual issues [1], if  
you insist upon expressing an opinion which contradicts the facts  
(ie, such as claiming that the SSH.COM license is "open-source"), you  
can expect people to disagree with you by pointing out the relevant  
facts.

As for submitting anything to the OSI mailing list: if you refrain  
from claiming that a proprietary license is "open source", then have  
no concern.

On the other hand, the OSI board does contact sites which misuse the  
OSI Open Source trademark to claim their proprietary software  
complies with the Open Source Definition, and they will apply social  
pressure, such as asking the vendor or site to stop misleading their  
users/customers about the status of the software.

Of course, as far as I know, SSH.COM makes no such claim, which  
*ought* to mean that nobody else should, either....

-- 
-Chuck

[1]: Oddly enough, many people think so highly of their own opinions  
that they choose to ignore facts which contradict their opinions.