[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: POP3 daemons in Debian



On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Alexander Koch wrote:

> They certainly can work independently.
> I think this is a good idea.
> 

Ok I'll do it then.  Look for ipopd and imap 4.4 packages sometime later
today.

> If they're not splitted a commented entry in inetd.conf would be fine!
> So, effectively, we're having three POP3 daemons in Debian. ,-)
> 
> How free is it, btw?
> 

It's the same copyright as IMAP (i.e. DFSG compliant.)  Here it is:

# Program:	IPOPD client Makefile
#
# Author:	Mark Crispin
#		Networks and Distributed Computing
#		Computing & Communications
#		University of Washington
#		Administration Building, AG-44
#		Seattle, WA  98195
#		Internet: MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU
#
# Date:		28 October 1990
# Last Edited:	14 April 1998
#
# Copyright 1998 by the University of Washington
#
#  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
# documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
# that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the
# above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
# documentation, and that the name of the University of Washington not be
# used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
# without specific, written prior permission.  This software is made
# available "as is", and
# THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
# WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL IMPLIED
# WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND IN
# NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
# INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
# LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT
# (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
# WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@braincells.com>


Reply to: