Bug#158533: project: qmail is installed on murphy
"Raul" == Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> Raul> [2] qmail is always redistributed at no or very-low cost and
> Raul> almost always in source form. Source can be retained
> Raul> indefinitely, and can be redistributed indefinitely.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:57:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Cost has little to do with free as the DFSG defines it, so
> this is a bit of a red herring. May one distribute modified versions
> of the software? May one distribute binary copies?
People distribute patches.
People distribute binaries.
People don't distribute binaries based on patches.
Qmail is small enough and well enough designed that rewriting it from
scratch is in some sense simpler than patching some other pieces of
free software.
> Raul> [3] qmail is the best option available -- no one has cared enough to
> Raul> write a free replacement that provides qmail's security, performance,
> Raul> stability and features.
>
> You shall get arguments about that. I postfix markedly
> inferior? And the non freeness of qmail does detract from the
> suitability of using it in Debian.
I'm not interested enough at present to have this discussion.
In the past, postfix has been markedly inferior. I'd have to do
considerable research work to find if whether or not it is still markedly
inferior.
> Raul> Personally, I'm considering proposing a constitutional amendment which
> Raul> provides specific exceptions to clauses 3 and 4 of the DFSG, and related
> Raul> guidelines (such as FHS) for Dan Bernstein's software.
>
> You have an uphil task before you to convince me of the
> desirability of this GR.
Undoubtedly.
--
Raul
Reply to: