Where is the official documentation for Bind9?

11 réponses [Dernière contribution]
GrevenGull
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/18/2017

In another thread about free DNS providers jxself commented this:

https://trisquel.info/en/forum/libre-uncensored-dns-providers#comment-123535

supertramp84 replied afterwards with this link: https://wiki.debian.org/Bind9

Is that the official documentation for Bind9?

When I searched one of the top results was this: http://bind9.net/

But it didn't look very "official" to me, so I am asking here to double check as it seems some of you (or at least one of you) are familiar with this program.

loldier
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 02/17/2016
GrevenGull
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/18/2017

Thanks! :)

GrevenGull
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/18/2017

I am little confused about BIND and ISC.

When I enter their Knowledge Base Manager Pro ( https://kb.isc.org/ )

There's a red banner that tells me I need to enable javasvript.

And the README.md file of their BIND 9.11 download starts with:

"Copyright (C) 2017, 2018 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")
-
- This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
- License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
- file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/."

SuperTramp83

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 10/31/2014

>When I enter their Knowledge Base Manager Pro ( https://kb.isc.org/ )

There's a red banner that tells me I need to enable javasvript.

And the README.md file of their BIND 9.11 download starts with:

"Copyright (C) 2017, 2018 Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")
-
- This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
- License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
- file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/."

que.gif
GrevenGull
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/18/2017

Haha :) but what do you not understand? :P

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 07/07/2017

It the JS is MPLv2, then it is free software.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#MPL-2.0

GrevenGull
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/18/2017

What? :P

What do you mean "if the JS is MPLv2?

Now I am really confused here

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 07/07/2017

Sorry, I misread your comment. I thought that the license you pasted was for the JavaScript you were being asked to install. I see now that you are referring to your download. Regardless, the license is not problematic.

Supertramp might have been confused as to why you were telling us the license of something you downloaded. My assumption was that you wanted to know if the copyright info was something to worry about. It is not.

GrevenGull
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/18/2017

Well idk about that.

I guess I am maybe heading towards something like how Calmstorm feels about systemd.

I just... the javascript on their page and that copyright thing just doesn't oil me gears to say it like that. Or put it another way: it grinds my gears.

Do you know of any other method to be your own DNS proivder than to use the BIND program?

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 07/07/2017

> the javascript on their page

is probably non-free, like most JavaScript. If so, like all non-free software, I suggest that you avoid it. Fortunately the site appears to function fine without JavaScript, unlike some sites you won't even allow you to navigate it without loading in JS from gstatic, a domain controlled by Google.

The license of the JS is unrelated to the license of BIND. In fact, I doubt that the JS and BIND were even written by the same people. This doesn't seem like a reason not to use BIND.

> that copyright thing

is necessary in order to release it as free software. Legally, a work defaults to being proprietary unless the creator specifies a free license, which requires a copyright statement. If you pay attention, you'll notice that even GPL'd software has a copyright statement. Copyright is what gives copyleft legal weight. After all, what legal authority do you have to license a piece of software under a free license unless you are the author?

This is certainly not a reason not to use BIND. In fact, having *no* copyright info *would* be a reason not to use BIND, as it would mean that it is probably proprietary.

> Do you know of any other method to be your own DNS proivder than to use the BIND program?

Hopefully I've clarified why the copyright thing is actually good, in which case you might no longer have reservations about using BIND. However, here[1] is a good resource for finding alternatives to programs. However, I always have to include this disclaimer.

- This site recommends both proprietary and free software. When you want to replace proprietary software, it is helpful to be able to look it up and see a list of alternatives, but I do not condone the use of any proprietary software listed. I suggest filtering your results by license.
- This site has non-free JavaScript, without which you cannot access the drop-down menu to filter by license. The workaround is to append '?license=opensource' to the URL of the results page.
- The site refers to "open source" instead of "free software." [2]
- While the site is a good place to begin your search, double-check that software listed as "open source" is actually free before you install it. First look for it in the Triquel repo. If it isn't there, look up the license yourself.

[1] https://alternativeto.net/software/bind/?license=opensource
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

GrevenGull
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 12/18/2017

This is a nice and deep explanation. Thank you :)

I'll look into the alternatives and think a little.