procmail/SmartList license (was Re: AW: Bug#8676: etc).
- To: Bruce Perens <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Debian Developers <email@example.com>
- Subject: procmail/SmartList license (was Re: AW: Bug#8676: etc).
- From: Santiago Vila Doncel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:47:52 +0200 (MET DST)
- Message-id: <Pine.LNX.3.96.970413013407.1588A-100000@rosa>
- Reply-to: Santiago Vila Doncel <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <m0wG8xs-00IdU6C@golem.pixar.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is just to clarify things:
On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Also, Stephen van den Berg seems to have gone onto other
> things - the SmartList release never happened.
Well, since a few weeks Stephen is working on it again (he has released
procmail and SmartList v 3.11pre5 and 3.11pre6), and he told me that 3.11
is near (he even removed procmail-3.10 from his FTP server).
> Now that we have MailAgent, procmail is less important.
Unfortunately, we run our lists using SmartList which is based on
procmail. I suppose we should not be using a software that we are not
allowed to distribute according to our policy. Oops.
> Here are my proposed guidelines (again).
[ Side note: For me it is not "again", but the first time ]
Clearly from this, procmail and SmartList are not free software:
> 7. The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
> being part of a Debian system. If a person extracts the program from
> Debian and uses it or distributes it without Debian, that person and
> any people to whom the program is redistributed should have the same
> rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system.
Could not we try to ask Stephen to make it *completely free* before moving
it to non-free? It would be really a pity...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org>