([EMAIL PROTECTED] snipped due to overwhelming qmail-centrism)
In the immortal words of Adam McKenna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> You don't, but others do. For instance, I can distribute a package that
> contains pristine qmail source and patches, and include a script which
> applies the patches, changes conf-home, and compiles and installs qmail.
> According to dist.html, that would be fine. But what if Dan found out
> someone was doing this and got angry? Maybe he'd think about changing
> dist.html. After he changed it, could I then continue distributing this
> package without fear of being sued?
IANAL, but my feeling is that the documents in question pretty
unambiguously lead to the conclusion that you'd be SOL in that case,
and I would further suspect that Dan keeps the only notices about
qmail's distribution terms in a centralized place to leave himself the
option of refining the terms were such a case to arise.
As he wrote the code, this is unquestionably his right.
As I peronally could care less about the alleged moral tonic of "Free"
or "Open Source" software and my needs are satisfied by qmail's
default configuration, this isn't really an issue for me personally.
People with personal or business needs for such things should probably
consider the MTAs which explicitly set such terms, rather than hoping
that qmail might one day satisfy them. Based on past experience, it's
not likely to.
------------------------------------------------------------<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<sunshine> Dear Future Employer: Who's your daddy? Who's your daddy? I think
we know. Thanks! $100,000 a year, I'll be there on monday, please.
-chelleMarie
<http://www.blank.org/memory/>------------------------------------------------
