On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 01:58:07PM +0800, Niall Young wrote: > What's the official stance on qmail? Is the licence (or lack thereof?) > too restrictive (any modified versions can't be distributed without > approval)? Yeah, that'll do it. See http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch2.html#s-pkgcopyright > I notice that qmail-src_1.03-14.deb and qmail_1.03-14.dsc are > in non-free - any reason that binary packages haven't been made (yes I > know that qmail-src comes with compile scripts)? You said it yourself: "modified versions can't be distributed without approval". Debian doesn't seek special status. It's part of Debian's policy. > Any issues or opinions > on qmail? I'll neatly try to avoid a flame war by not expressing my own opinion, but I'll point you at someone else's. http://linux.umbc.edu/lug-mailing-list/1999-04/msg00096.html > I've recently migrated from RedHat (and loving it) and while I'd prefer to > stick with what Debian officially recommends, qmail has some features that I > prefer. Anyone got any good arguments against qmail? Debian officially recommends something? That's news to me. -Dan -- "... the most serious problems in the Internet have been caused by unenvisaged mechanisms triggered by low-probability events; mere human malice would never have taken so devious a course!" - RFC 1122 section 1.2.2
Attachment:
pgpPTFtHuOtBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature