From: Bill Cole (postfixlists-070913billmail.scconsult.com)
Date: Wed Dec 26 2007 - 12:51:02 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

At 9:54 AM -0500 12/26/07, Terry Carmen wrote:
>Bill Cole wrote:
>>At 8:51 AM -0500 12/26/07, Terry Carmen wrote:
>>>Wietse Venema wrote:
>>>>>Wonder if it's fair to rename Postfix like this...
>>>>>To me, it doesn't look good.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It's configurable in main.cf :-)
>>>>
>>>>The good news is that people won't ask me for help with
>>>>their bounces.
>>>>
>>>If they're going to make money essentially renaming Postifx, they
>>>should have to cough up a free license for their server antivirus
>>>product, for Postfix users.
>>
>>
>>Where do you see such a requirement in the Postfix LICENSE file?
>>
>Of course it's not in the license. That doesn't mean that it
>couldn't be placed there.

Perhaps for future versions. I hope not. It would almost certainly
result in a fork.

I would think that if IBM, Dr. Venema, and other Contributors (as
defined in the license) had wanted to encumber Postfix with something
like that, they would have done so rather than having spelled out in
the license how properly to deal with the inclusion of Postfix as
part of a commercial product. It looks like Symantec paid attention
to the license as it is, without paying much attention to any
alternative hypothetical license. A little searching around the web
turns up evidence that they are using some variant of the 2.2
codebase, which implies that a license change now would not change
how they are required to act anyway.

--
Bill Cole
billscconsult.com

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]