qjail fork attribution was Handbook Jail Chapter rewrite available for critique

Fbsd8 fbsd8 at a1poweruser.com
Tue Mar 26 16:26:52 UTC 2013

Dirk Engling wrote:
> Dear JoeB,
> since you just threatened me via private email to expose my evil plans
> of preventing your ubercool project from taking FreeBSD by storm, I
> would like to comment on your views and your project publicly
> On 22.03.13 23:12, Fbsd8 wrote:
>> On the subject of qjail being a fork of ezjail, of course it is.
> So, you've decided to run along with an existing code base to fork a
> project. Congratulations.
> You surely must have had reasons, like including features that the
> original author told you never to implement. Like you found the project
> abandoned and no one replied to your requests.
> Well, except you did not. I found out about your fork by chance, after
> someone directed my attention to your constant bragging and nagging.
> Why, after all, would you ever feel the need to talk to me directly
> about the fork? After all, what common interests might we possibly share?
> So I think the only reason to rip off ezjails code was to boost your ego
> with some impressive looking column of shell script you obviously had
> trouble understanding, which comes as no surprise as you _still_ seem to
> have trouble grasping even the basic concepts of shell scripting:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2013-January/248558.html
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2013-January/247723.html
> Reading this I find it very disturbing that you try to lure users into
> using your bumbling hack that pokes in one of the core security features
> of FreeBSD. To put it more plainly: What you do is dangerous. Stop doing
> it. You're putting your users at risk.
>> British member concluded that the author of ezjail must be British based
>> solely on the spelling of the flavour directory. He also convinced us
>> that his Beerware license was British humor, a joke, and should not be
>> taken serous. In our review of other jail ports we did not see this
> Then tell your "British member" to read up on some contemporary
> literature, maybe Wikipedia
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beerware
> so he has a chance to understand what connects Beerware and FreeBSD. Do
> not use your confused team member as pretext to violate the terms of
> license you obviously found by yourself and chose to ignore.
>> file. It was inserted in the front like they have. We though that was
>> how you make software opensource which was the intention. There are no
>> formal copyright documents; it's just a extrapolation from the FreeBSD
>> comments.
> Besides completely failing to see the point what the difference between
> open source and public domain is, you do not have the slightest idea,
> what a community of people sharing their code as open source is about.
> The simple fact that you resort to Windows and IIS to serve your web
> site should have warned me, that you do not actually have any connection
> to the scene besides your gimme-gimme-gimme attitude.
> To make my point clear: Open source software is about attribution. For
> multiple reasons, most important to me: getting to socialize. Beerware
> is not so much about getting the actual beer, but to have a chance to
> sit together and talk with people sharing common interests. Now you rob
> me of the chance to ever hear from people using my code disguised as yours.
> Another reason, of course, is the pride we take in spending nearly ten
> years on ezjail and we definitely do not like some script kiddie running
> around adorn himself with plumes plucked from our asses.
>> section is not appropriate to include qjail under Freebsd opensource
>> type of license, then we can change the comments to say "totally free to
>> do as you wish as opensource" and leave it at that. If something else is
>> needed, please inform what that is by private email. To continue this
>> this subject in public is not appropriate. Please respect our wish in
>> this matter.
> No, I will not respect your wishes, as you chose to ignore mine. You are
> not totally free to do as you wish with the ezjail authors' code and you
> can not grant that rights to someone else.
> Regarding your fork: I can not and I will not prevent forks from
> happening. So I wish you good luck with it. Maybe you learn some shell
> on the way.
> The qjail port has been marked RESTRICTED by the ports managers and I
> will withdraw my concerns once you find a proper way to indicate
> original authorship in a humble way.
> Regards,
>    erdgeist

Dear Dirk Engling

I feel sorry for you. I man with such talent and respect has fallen to 
such a level of self induced public humiliation. This outburst only 
confirms my suspicion that your suffering from dementia caused by 
advancing age. I tried to give you a way to save face as I purposed in 
my private email to you. But now that you have moved things into the 
public light you force me to publicly point out just how confused your 
thinking is.

The FACT is the ezjail-3.2.3 port currently in the port system contains 
NO verbiage concerning any type of license. Even the ezjail Makefile 
doesn't invoke the BSD license.

Even after I informed you of this fact by private email (which I have 
inserted below) you choose to publicly attack me in this manner. In this 
post you cut and paste selected snippets of content from different posts 
I made, which when inserted into the above post is taken totally out of 
context. To make matters worse you use a subject which will slander my 
efforts in creating a re-write of the handbook jail chapter. SHAME ON 
YOU. YOU KNOW BETTER THAN TO DO THAT. I had parents who both went 
through the confusion, forgetfulness, short term memory lose and 
paranoia you are exhibiting now. I understand what you are going through 
and forgive you for your actions. I pray you are under medical care for 
this condition. There are drugs which reduce these effects and prolong 
the periods of normalness.

After your first email informing me (which is inserted below) you had 
qjail marked RESTRICTED, I replied in a very respectfully manner asking 
you to inform me what you wanted stated in qjail to make you happy. 
After a week of no reply from you, it become apparent your intention was 
to never have the RESTRICTED status removed no matter what. Or more 
likely you forgot all about it. At that point I installed the ezjail 
port to read for myself what the ezjail license was all about and I find 
NO license verbiage at all. Which is an indicator of short term memory 
lose. The posting of this email where you say I threatened you is a 
indicator of paranoia.

One does not have to be a lawyer to know the lack of any license 
verbiage embedded in computer programs released to the public becomes 
property of public domain forever. Putting license verbiage on your next 
port version is unenforceable because it's already property of public 

Only due to the respected position you have in the FreeBSD community did 
the ports administrator accept your word as sufficient cause to mark 
qjail's port as RESTRICTED. They should have at least reviewed the 
ezjail port to verify your claim first.

Over the last week I have corresponded with the other members of the 
qjail project team. With hind sight we realize we un-intentional omitted 
  stating any where that qjail was a fork of ezjail. This was not our 
intention. We plan to correct that over sight by adding the following to 
the "Authors" section of qjail's man page in the next release of qjail.

qjail is a fork of ezjail written by Dirk Engling.

I am sending this post to the ports mailing list. I am here by formally 
requesting the RESTRICTED status be rescinded for lack of creditable 
evidence to back Dirk Engling claim of qjail's failure to fulfill 
ezjail's license requirements because there is no ezjail license at all.

Respectfully Yours
Joe Barbish for the qjail project team.

what follows it the private email to Dirk Engling
sent Mon 3/25/2013 7:59 PM

Dirk Engling,

I am at a loss to understand your claims in this matter.
I just downloaded the current port system ezjail-3.2.3 port and 
installed it and fail to see any mention of your so called "Beerware" 
license in the ezjail-admin script or the man page.

I respectfully suggest you have the suspension rescinded in the same 
quick manner in which you got it activated. With out some creditable 
evidence to back your claim I will be forced to publicly request someone 
from the ports mailing list to inspect the ezjail-3.2.3 port now in the 
ports system and let them judge for themselves the validity of your 
current claim. Just like you emailed me about the suspension being 
activated I expect you to also notify me of its removal in the next 2 
days. I will just consider this whole thing a friendly mis-understanding.
Respectfully Yours
Joe Barbish for the qjail project team.

************** first contact from Dirk Engling
-----Original Message-----
From: Dirk Engling [mailto:erdgeist at erdgeist.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:42 PM
To: Joe Barbish
Subject: qjail fork attribution

Hi Joe,

I noticed your unofficial ezjail fork after your attempts to promote our
little project in the FreeBSD handbook.

You might possibly have missed the Beerware license attached to the
ezjail project that asks anyone using the code to not claim it is theirs.

However it appears that you did exactly that and even claim a copyright

   # Copyright  2010,  Qjail project. All rights reserved.

that I definitely did not grant you.

For that reason I asked the port managers to suspend the qjail port
until we have talked things through and I find the Beerware license
respected and the project's original authors properly mentioned.


While in principle I don't have anything against nor can I prevent a
fork, I find your approach a little disturbing.

Please fix your license attribution in the sense Beerware was intended,
so I can withdraw my concerns and ask the ports managers to unset the
port's RESTRICTED flag. After that I wish you the best with your project.


More information about the freebsd-jail mailing list