Re: Packaging Cyrus
Alexander Koch <efraim@really.argh.org> writes:
> Go, re-read the license and tell me it's worse than qmail. :->
It *is* worse than qmail. *Much* worse.
You see, while qmail's license may be restrictive in ways that violate
the DSFG---which would seem to also be the case for Cyrus, given the
no discrimination against fields of endeavour clause in the DSFG---it
is at least:
1) pretty straightforward in its restrictions (no binaries, no
patched source), thus easy to follow,
and
2) those restrictions it does have do not govern use, only
distribution.
> After a thread on the list about one month ago the license rather
> needs to be rephrased but it is nothing that could not be sorted out
> by sending mails to the users list.
With all due respect, if it could be so easily sorted out, why hasn't
the sorting out been done? Obviously the issue has been raised---why
not resolved?
I suspect it's because the solution isn't necessarily obvious, simple
or perhaps perceived as necessary.
Frankly, I'm awfully glad these comments were made, since I hadn't
looked closely enough at Cyrus' license to realize that I couldn't use
it for a project I'm about to start working on.
Mind you, I'm not going to go with qmail, either. I much prefer
postfix. And with a proper delivery agent and the UW imapd, one can
get good performance, etc., without having to go to Cyrus.
> We do not recommend software here, it was a question if you were
> about to package it or not. :->
Unfortunately, this comment isn't really all that funny.
Mike.
Reply to: