On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 06:54:32PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > Quoting Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!? > > > > It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the > > license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g. > > http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation. > > So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't > the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package? >
Qmail is now "in the public domain" as far as I understand it. No other licence - which may be problematic, except that djb's text says "I hereby place the qmail package (in particular qmail-1.03.tar.gz with MD5 checksum 622f65f982e380dbe86e6574f3abcb7c) into the public domain. You are free to modify the package, distribute modified versions etc. " and then a paragraph stating that modifications are not encouraged and that identical interfaces should be maintained. [See, for more details, http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html effective 30 November 2007]. > > I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether > or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter > of CAN we.. ? > We _can_ but the FSF aren't sure about the fact that modification is discouraged as I read it. "The license of Qmail is not a free software license because it mostly prohibits the distribution of modified versions" [Page last modified 2007-12-11 - not sure if that's an ISO or a US date so not sure whether that takes into account the licence changes - taken from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/licenses.html ] See also the Wikipedia article on License-free software though Russell Nelson and the OSI now regard it as OSI-free. > And wether or not Qmail is any good - MY opinion is that it kicks > ANY MTA's but! Postfix and Sendmail both suck big time compared to > the simplicity and speed of Qmail. Opinions are like a butt - > everyone got one (sorry, couldn't remember the English equivalence > of this old Swedish saying - but I asume that the point isn't lost :). > Point taken. > > So to be or not to be is irrelevant - the question is: are we > ALLOWED to distribute it or not? > Possibly, with caveats. Just my 0.02 Euro c Andy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
