Le 28/02/2011 23:03, Quanah Gibson-Mount a écrit : > --On Monday, February 28, 2011 3:37 PM -0500 Wietse Venema > <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > >>> Wieste, will postfix be moving to the CPL, or will it be retaining the >>> IPL? >> >> The IPL is the second license under which Postfix was released. >> With IPL and CPL being similar in spirit (and equally objectionable >> for OpenBSD, according to people I talked to) I need to hear good >> arguments before I would enter further discussion with IBM lawyers. > > Hi Wieste, > > I see that the CPL has in fact been replaced with the EPL. Do the BSD > folks find it as objectionable as well?
<humour> If you're confusing "BSD folks" and "OpenBSD", then you shouldn't worry about gpl, epl, cpl, ipl and all that jam:) </humour> > If not, then if you do look > into re-licensing postfix, perhaps the EPL would be a better solution. > > The general argument in favor of re-licensing postfix that I see is that > the EPL in particular is seen as more friendly, OSS wise, by other > groups, even if not by the BSD folks. postfix is the default MTA in NetBSD. so it seems "some" of the "BSD folks" have no problems with the current licence;-p > Certainly allowing postfix to be > linked against the MySQL libraries without engendering a license > violation is a significant positive. Postfix is highly used among > various linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, RedHat all come to > mind), but with the exception of Redhat, none of them link postfix > against the MySQL libraries by default. > could you get any info on how RH are "solving" the problem (if there is a problem)? I can't believe they could get this wrong. > I appreciate you taking the time to ponder what I am sure is quite a > arduous task, even if you decide against going forward with it. > > Regards, > Quanah > > -- > > Quanah Gibson-Mount > Sr. Member of Technical Staff > Zimbra, Inc > A Division of VMware, Inc. > -------------------- > Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
