-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 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
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 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, 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.
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 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
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
-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
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
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-
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 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, 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.
14 matches
Mail list logo
