Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: Vincent Danen (vdanenmandrakesoft.com)
Date: Tue Dec 04 2001 - 12:03:04 CST
On Mon Dec 03, 2001 at 08:51:35PM +0100, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > > > I did take some liberties with djbdns because I didn't like it's
> > > > layout and put everything in /var/djbdns instead of the recommended
> > > > approach (with symlinks for compatability). But, since I'm
> > > > distributing it and MandrakeSoft isn't, I didn't really care. =)
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I'm not sure if djbdns has the same licensing restrictions
> > > > as qmail... I should check that as well.
> Please do, also check ucspi-tcp.
I will. I was looking at the qmail distribution license again last
night... right now it's unsure as to whether or not qmail will even
make it into the commercial apps, I was conversing (sorta) with djb
last night and the impression I got is that he does not want us
packaging qmail with our distribution. I got two relatively obscure
messages from him, and am still hoping for a response asking for
I don't know if I'll ever get it... I suppose I was lucky enough to
get those two messages in the first place. Bottom line is unless he
gives me a little more info, qmail will not be on the commercial
CDs... apparently putting the source with unapplied patches on the CD
would be a violation of his distribution license, although I don't see
> Thanks a bunch!
> I think I have asked him this very question several times by e-mail, but
> never gotten an answer (for years...).
hehehe... well, to be honest, I was quite floored when I received not
one response from him last night, but two. I guess I'm 3r33t or
something now... hehhe
> > I suspect this means that if I were to download the source, patch it,
> > and build it, I could use the resulting binaries anywhere in my
> > organization where *I* have control over things, because I own a) the
> > source and b) am applying patched binaries to my own systems (or those
> > I am responsible for). The difference is I can't make the resulting
> > binaries available to others outside of my organization or home;
> > ie. make them publically downloadable because my patched binaries do
> > not operate "as advertised", or as a pristine qmail does. The end
> > idea is to have all binary versions of qmail operate exactly the same
> > as if the user had followed djb's installation instructions.
> Yes. This is more of an commercial closed solution... I guess you could
> protect the changes *you* make to *your* "distro" with *your* own
> copyright... One, and only one private install CD, and one for the customer
> with djb stuff only as sources (rpm:s) only... Wierd...
As it stands right now, I think distributing the source rpm on CD is a
violation of his license, according to what he wrote to me last night.
If nothing else, the rpms will continue to be available via
rpmhelp.net, and possible made a little more intuitive so that a user
can simply do "urpmi qmail" or something in a default installation.
-- OpenPGP key available on www.keyserver.net 1024D/FE6F2AFD 88D8 0D23 8D4B 3407 5BD7 66F9 2043 D0E5 FE6F 2AFD
Current Linux kernel 2.4.8-34.1mdk uptime: 14 days 19 hours 29 minutes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8DQ/YIEPQ5f5vKv0RApq7AKCiy+NqTq7J2CCw6XwwOCxyKaCYWwCeIBB0 O2f83s7Mn+dby2f7AR6q+Fg= =Lj+Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----