Re: Status of qmail?
On Tue, Jul 14, 1998 at 05:33:18PM +0000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> The slow replies I'm used to. The message would have been very polite, and
> I'm pretty sure a qmail binary package under the current license cannot go
> into main--which is really where a program like qmail should be. Other than
> the restrictions on binaries for the sake of sanity, security,
> compatibility, and general paranoia (some of which is IMO well placed) the
> program IS free software. The source portions of the DFSG are met, the
> binary distribution portions aren't, but almost are.
Dan has restated his stand on this issue multiple
times. If someone can convert him this late in the game,
please ask me to sit down before breaking the news;)
He is not willing to let people distribute modified
(differently-acting) versions of qmail, not even under
a different name. He feels all qmail installations should
work as _he_ designed, and thinks that he will be unjustly
blamed if "foo-spesific" qmail-versions fail.
> However I haven't sent the letter yet (in which I DID get the name right,
> don't ask me WHY I was thinking T) and won't if people think I shouldn't. I
Please do show it to someone else before sending - I've
been on djb-qmail longer than a Debian developer and
think everyone will agree this has been argued about
over and over. If you have good points, it is well worth
it, I just want to make sure history does not repeat itself.
> just really hate to see Debian ignore a perfectly good piece of software on
> the small point that the author wants bins to behave in a predictable way.
> I believe qmail can probably be distributed in a manner which leaves him
> sleeping better knowing his program does work as designed and also is part
> of Debian. (non-free is not part of Debian..)
DJB's biggest problems with binary qmail distributions have
been with the removal of the previous MTA, etc. The Debian
package system takes care of that quite cleanly.
> Certainly that won't happen if you whine to him that it can't unless he
> changes license terms. It won't happen unless he can see a good reason to
> make that license change--it doesn't matter if WE see a good reason, it is
> his program after all. Still, I believe Debian is a significant enough
> number of people---enough of whom use the inferior by many stnadards smail
> because it's the default.
You have read ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/dist.html,
have you? He likes free distribution - but hates modified
versions. In a sense, it's Qt all over again.. you can't make
a simple patch and distribute that, as the system has to be
_identical_.
Oh, what I wouldn't give to have a qmailish MTA that's free.
However, I'm quite happy with qmail-src.deb -- actually I have
some servers I don't intend to upgrade from 1.01, as it would
mean a major rewrite of auxiliary software;)
--
tv-nospam-sig-1@hq.yok.utu.fi - it's a valid address w/o spam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: