Re: Status of qmail?
> > If we could properly deal with cleaning out the mail spool in the
> > departing MTA, I think he'd be willing for us to distribute it under a
> > license where modified versions can be distributed as long as they don't
> > use the name "qmail" and don't use binaries with "qmail" in their name.
> That was my original hope. If people don't think he'd go for it (seems many
> think he would not) I don't want to risk unsettling things and risk making
> them worse.
It seems that there are only two states that a patch can exist in, as far as
Dan is concerned.
Either it is useful, well thought out, and well engineered (in which case
it will get into qmail's upstream source) or it isn't (in which case you
don't get to distribute binaries with it in).
You have to admit, he's got a point.
It's just unusual to come across someone who is so convinced of his own
rightness, and it is often easy to fall into the trap of thinking that
someone so arrogant has to be wrong.
The bottom line is, that I don't think you'll ever get permission from Dan to
distribute binaries built from patched sources --- he's not even willing to
accept porting patches, if you read his distribution conditions:
``if the OS is broken enough to require patches, it's not supported'' (or
something like that)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org