[2010-02-26 07:35] Wietse Venema
> markus schnalke:
> >
> > There is the rmail script in postfix which I'd like to include in
> > masqmail. This mail is to ask you about its license.
> >
> > Which license does apply to it?
>
> I think that no licen
lamont writes:
> It still suffers from the not-quite DFSG license: I was hoping that we
> could stick it in non-free pending the outcome of Wietse's efforts to
> loosen up the license to meet DFSG.
> If not, feel free to reject it again
I see no reason it can't go in non-free.
--
John Hasle
I've uploaded Postfix 19981230 to master.
It still suffers from the not-quite DFSG license: I was hoping that we
could stick it in non-free pending the outcome of Wietse's efforts to
loosen up the license to meet DFSG.
If not, feel free to reject it again
thanks,
lamont
r
> UNIX-domain sockets for IPC between chrooted daemons (comparable
> to someone patenting the exclusive OR cursor), then that pretty
> much nukes the entire Postfix mail system.
>
> I can understand there is pain when you are only using, say, the
> vstream module because you need
gt; We could go either for the PKIX license or for a clarification on
> the Postfix one.
In my opinion the PKIX license complies with the Debian Free Software
Guidelines and software published under it could go into the Debian
distribution.
I also think that the PKIX license is Open Source comp
ar license otherwise.
We could go either for the PKIX license or for a clarification on
the Postfix one.
Wietse
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > But I'm not sure I understand the problem.
>
> Corporate policies change. IBM may decide next year that Postfix is of no
> further inter
> But I'm not sure I understand the problem.
Corporate policies change. IBM may decide next year that Postfix is of no
further interest. Then when they receive a claim that it infringes
someone's IP they might decide that invoking the revocation clause is the
least expensive way to
LaMont Jones writes:
> Unfortunately, failure to include such a clause really increases the
> exposure of the author to successful infringement claims: you may
> suddenly become responsible for the actions of everyone you gave the
> software to, since you granted them license to things you didn't o
r
> UNIX-domain sockets for IPC between chrooted daemons (comparable
> to someone patenting the exclusive OR cursor), then that pretty
> much nukes the entire Postfix mail system.
>
> I can understand there is pain when you are only using, say, the
> vstream module because you need
omparable
to someone patenting the exclusive OR cursor), then that pretty
much nukes the entire Postfix mail system.
I can understand there is pain when you are only using, say, the
vstream module because you needed something that stdio could not
do for you. In that case it would suck if you c
> This clause clearly fails the DFSG:
> > In the event an intellectual property claim is made or appears likely to
> > be made with respect to the Software, you agree to permit IBM to enable
> > you to continue to use the Software, or to modify it, or replace it with
> > software that is at least f
LaMont Jones writes:
> As far as I can see there does not seem to be anything that fails DFSG.
This clause clearly fails the DFSG:
> In the event an intellectual property claim is made or appears likely to
> be made with respect to the Software, you agree to permit IBM to enable
> you to continue
I have heard some indications that people might think that Postfix doesn't
meet DFSG.
I've attached the LICENSE file below (which is dutifully included in
/usr/doc/postfix/copyright in the package). As far as I can see there
does not seem to be anything that fails DFSG.
Could you put
Hi all,
Rob Levin at Open Projects has been in contact with some IBM people about
Postfix, as there seems to be some license issues. Could you guys please
talk with him about what you think about it? I'd really like a DFSG
resolution so we can make use of this mailer.
Thanks,
Jason
14 matches
Mail list logo
