Note that both djbdns and qmail have been in the public domain for years now. The general opposition to their license seems to have long outlived their license.
I think that's more related to the non-unified, pre-DVCS patch centric model of development, and the fact that djb has better things to do/is no longer interested in developing them.
If djb would have found an interested party to accept patches to the codebase, set it up on a code hosting site, then declared "this is the main repo for continuation of djbdns/qmail development", it would have gone a lot further than just "it's in the public domain" and no other guidance.
Comments
Note that both djbdns and qmail have been in the public domain for years now. The general opposition to their license seems to have long outlived their license.
I think that's more related to the non-unified, pre-DVCS patch centric model of development, and the fact that djb has better things to do/is no longer interested in developing them.
If djb would have found an interested party to accept patches to the codebase, set it up on a code hosting site, then declared "this is the main repo for continuation of djbdns/qmail development", it would have gone a lot further than just "it's in the public domain" and no other guidance.
This has lead to things like "dbndns", which are a good attempt, but definitely not a general, cross unix version solution: http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/djbdns.html