Re: VMailer (Was: Status of qmail?)
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> FWIW, I've seen this issue come up several times over the past couple
> of years -- I was even on the qmail list a while back where I saw it
> in full technicolor flames, and I'd have to agree with those that
> don't think DJB's likely to change his mind.
For what it's worth, I sided with DJB in those full technicolor flames,
his points made sense to me. [Recap: no system currently allows reliable
binary installs of qmail, so a source-code only license makes sense --
not that our current qmail-src package deals with the lost mail problem.]
While I don't know for sure that I can convince him to allow modified
versions of qmail to be distributed, I'm pretty sure I can at least get
him to allow us to distribute binaries, if we can make it so that people
don't have mail get lost when qmail is installed.
[And I'm a bit more hopeful than most that he'd be willing to do a
DFSG-free license for qmail -- though you can bet it won't be like
anything you've seen before. But I don't think we have a hope of
convincing him to allow us to distribute binaries built from modified
sources if we can't even convince him to allow us to distribute binaries.]
Finally, note that what we need to do to be able to distribute qmail
binaries (not lose mail from whatever previous mta was installed) isn't a
qmail specific issue, and that solving it would benefit most of our users.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: