3 ms·
It isn't ambiguous at all. If you're publishing something, whether it's open and free or commercial you're a vendor so you have to follow the policy ntp.org se
by mandelbulb 11y ago
It isn't ambiguous at all.
If you're publishing something, whether it's open and free or commercial you're a vendor so you have to follow the policy ntp.org set-up for such entities.
That person on github is misunderstanding both Poettering and the ntp.org's policy.
MatejLach's elaborated on Poettering's point of view for that matter. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/437#issuecomment-117639073 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/437#issuecomment-1...
- dannyperson 11y agoThe way I see it is: * NTP Pool welcomes open source projects to use their servers * They want vendors to register a vendor prefix so there are two options, either systemd is a vendor, and can register and use systemd.pool.ntp.org, or it isn't, and can use pool.ntp.org
- jlgaddis 11y agoThey can use "the pool", i.e. the collection of NTP servers. They could (register a "vendor zone") and use "[0-3].systemd.pool.ntp.org". They can, technically, even use "[0-3].pool.ntp.org", but the NTP Pool Project is saying they cannot use [the specific hostname] "pool.ntp.org". That last part is what people are apparently not understanding. Also, OpenBSD blatantly ignores it and uses "pool.ntp.org" anyways.