On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, David Nicol wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 11:18 AM, Charlie Brady
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Copyright is automatic but trademarks are not.
I didn't say that - Guy Hulbert did.
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 16:10 -0800, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
>
> > What I'm asking, is *if* the license had already been changed, *would*
> > you have implemented qpsmtpd via XS rather than rewriting qmail-smtpd
> > entirely.
>
>
> How much thought
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 14:42 -0600, David Nicol wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2007 11:18 AM, Charlie Brady
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Copyright is automatic but trademarks are not.
>
> I don't know the exact rules, but there certainly are
> situations where ownership of a mark does not require regi
On Dec 1, 2007, at 6:51 AM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
What I'm asking, is *if* the license had already been changed, *would*
you have implemented qpsmtpd via XS rather than rewriting qmail-smtpd
entirely.
How much thought did you give to this? :-)
It doesn't make any sense.
For starters, qmail-
All this talk of trademarks is pointless. If you want to respect DJB's
contribution, don't name it qmail, period. You don't have any legal
obligation to, but there's a pretty strong moral obligation. Not to
mention that it would be quite confusing for someone to start releasing
a package called "qm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Nicol wrote:
> I don't have any idea about Australia though. :)
My understanding in Australia is that it is based on both
precedence/actual use and registration. China and the EU don't recognise
'actual use' trademarks - they require registratio
On Dec 1, 2007 11:18 AM, Charlie Brady
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Copyright is automatic but trademarks are not.
I don't know the exact rules, but there certainly are
situations where ownership of a mark does not require registration. The
best example is the saga of Torvalds recovering owner
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 11:40 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > What I'm asking, is *if* the license had already been changed, *would*
> > you have implemented qpsmtpd via XS rather than rewriting qmail-smtpd
> > entirely.
>
> I don't think there would be a big win from this. If you run perl at
> all
Guy Hulbert wrote:
If it were PD, would you have tried to build an XS interface instead ?
Does that even make sense ?
What benefit do you imagine it'd have? Which part of "core qmail-
smtpd" is slow in qpsmtpd-{fork,select}server? Did you look at the
qmail-smtpd code?
No but you did.
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Les Mikesell wrote:
Who knows, but I'd certainly hope that someone would fix the stock smptd to
not back-scatter bounce messages to the generally-forged senders of messages
to recipients that don't exist.
There's no need. Just delete qmail-smtpd. It's obsolete.
On Sat, 1 Dec 2007, Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 23:25 -0600, David Nicol wrote:
as I understand it, the name 'qmail' is a separate property from the
source code released under the name.
Nope. Copyright is automatic but trademarks are not.
Trademarks must be agressively protect
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 23:25 -0600, David Nicol wrote:
> as I understand it, the name 'qmail' is a separate property from the
> source code released under the name.
Nope. Copyright is automatic but trademarks are not.
Trademarks must be agressively protected ... and for some purposes
registered.
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 18:02 -0800, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
>
> >> Uh - the very first version of qpsmtpd was almost a line by line port
> >> of qmail-smtpd.
> >
> > That is interesting.
> >
> > If it were PD, would you have tried to build an XS in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guy Hulbert wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 13:18 -0500, Matt Sergeant wrote:
>> On 30-Nov-07, at 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>> Is the license change on qmail likely to change the direction of
>>> qpsmtpd?
>> Doubtful. Qpsmtpd wasn't written be
On Nov 30, 2007 7:46 PM, Chris Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Nicol wrote:
>
> > This looks to me like, although he has PD'd the package, he intends to
> > retain the restrictions on the qmail brand.
>
> If he's made it PD, he cannot impose any restrictions. The "please"
> recognizes tha
On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
Uh - the very first version of qpsmtpd was almost a line by line port
of qmail-smtpd.
That is interesting.
If it were PD, would you have tried to build an XS interface instead ?
Does that even make sense ?
What benefit do you imagine it'd
On Nov 30, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is the license change on qmail likely to change the direction of
qpsmtpd? (Now you can fix it instead of replacing parts...).
This means that (net-)qmail can get bundled up as regular components /
options in the various distributions and w
David Nicol wrote:
> This looks to me like, although he has PD'd the package, he intends to
> retain the restrictions on
> the qmail brand.
If he's made it PD, he cannot impose any restrictions. The "please"
recognizes that fact, and simply expresses a wish that people playing
with qmail don't b
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 11:55 -0800, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
> Uh - the very first version of qpsmtpd was almost a line by line port
> of qmail-smtpd.
That is interesting.
If it were PD, would you have tried to build an XS interface instead ?
Does that even make sense ?
>
> - ask
--
--gh
Uh - the very first version of qpsmtpd was almost a line by line port
of qmail-smtpd.
- ask
--
http://develooper.com
On Nov 30, 2007, at 11:42, Guy Hulbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 13:18 -0500, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On 30-Nov-07, at 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Guy Hulbert wrote:
Is the license change on qmail likely to change the direction of
qpsmtpd?
Doubtful. Qpsmtpd wasn't written because of a dislike of the license.
There have been proposals to extend Qpsmtpd to do more than qmail-smtpd
(indeed it already does). This license change makes it u
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 13:18 -0500, Matt Sergeant wrote:
> On 30-Nov-07, at 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > Is the license change on qmail likely to change the direction of
> > qpsmtpd?
>
> Doubtful. Qpsmtpd wasn't written because of a dislike of the license.
There have been proposals to ex
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 13:25 -0600, David Nicol wrote:
> This looks to me like, although he has PD'd the package, he intends to
> retain the restrictions on
> the qmail brand.
Nonsense. Read Stallman on public domain.
--
--gh
David Nicol wrote:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html at this moment in time says:
QUOTE
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,
David Nicol skribis 2007-11-30 13:25 (-0600):
> This looks to me like, although he has PD'd the package, he intends to
> retain the restrictions on the qmail brand.
There appear to no longer be any restrictions. It may not be encouraged
to make changes, but it is certainly *allowed*.
> The "pleas
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html at this moment in time says:
QUOTE
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.
This does not m
Les Mikesell skribis 2007-11-30 10:58 (-0600):
> Is the license change on qmail likely to change the direction of
> qpsmtpd?
Hmm... qpsmtpd can now be distributed together with qmail. That'd be a
nice step towards a scriptable MTA.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Kind regards, Korajn salutojn,
J
On 30-Nov-07, at 11:58 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Is the license change on qmail likely to change the direction of
qpsmtpd?
Doubtful. Qpsmtpd wasn't written because of a dislike of the license.
An interesting move though.
Matt.
Is the license change on qmail likely to change the direction of
qpsmtpd? (Now you can fix it instead of replacing parts...).
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
29 matches
Mail list logo
