On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:18:41PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote: >What are the isues about qmail license restrictions now? > >Most know that it's vastly "superior" over other MTA's. >(i.e. people tend to like it more) >E.g. sourceware uses qmail > http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#what-software > >I see in the thread around > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-05/msg01651.html, >that qmail has no acceptable license to include it into cygwin, >because it cannot be guaranteed that it will work reliably on that >"crappy platform" (simplified). Maybe just with dropping vpopmail support. > >Still the last word? >Maybe provide a source package only? Igor suggested such a trick, but >then the thread drifted into something completely different. (RPM >support, ant, ...) > >Sergey's original porting thread > http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-05/msg01593.html >also drifted into something completely different. (mysql server) > >Still waiting on DJB's approval?
It's vanishingly unlikely that we'll get DJB's approval. You might check into how the netqmail does this: http://www.qmail.org/netqmail/ They don't seem to offer binaries, so I assume the licensing problems still exist. Why not concentrate on sendmail or postfix instead? These days, I don't think qmail has anything over postfix. I use all three and prefer postfix. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
