On Wed, Mar 04, 1998 at 04:13:13PM -0600, Henry Hollenberg wrote:
>
>
> Henry Hollenberg speed@barney.iamerica.net
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Mar 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 1998 at 03:54:40PM -0600, Henry Hollenberg wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 04, 1998 at 03:07:45PM -0600, Henry Hollenberg wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > Package: smail _cut_ .vs. Replace with qmail?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Qmail isn't even non-free and cannot even be considered as an
> > > > > > alternative.
> SNIP
> > > I thought I read on the developer list that Bruce OK'd it to go into
> > > debian as non-free...wouldn't this be "distribution"?
> >
> > Afaik that's a qmail-source-patch package. It does not contain
> > a Qmail binary nor Qmail source files. Afaik it only contains
> > files and patches to build a .deb from the official (well, the one
> > and only) source file distributed by djb.
> >
> > Please prove me wrong.
> >
> Well, since I'm relying on you guys greatly to keep me on track and know
> very little about Debian, (for now), I would have great trouble proving
> you wrong!
Grab the qmail.deb and look into it.
> But, I would like clarification...what principle is at issue here:
You mean priciple as general or principle with Qmail?
> a) It's a "Bad Thing"? (ie the source policy etc isn't free)
It's not DFSG free. I'd be very happy if that debwall would
be completely DFSG complient. I don't know about the policy
and copyright of most of the tools.
> b) It can't be used by a private individual? (I'm pretty sure it can.)
You are not allowed to distribute Qmail. Period.
> c) It can't be part of a commercial firewall, ie "be sold for profit"?
I. The debwall should be able to be sold as a commercial firewall,
say, you're configuring a machine and put debwall on it as its
firewall.
II. Qmail can't be part of anything. Period.
(Well, a little bit harsh but you may tell your customers
that if they want to have mail they need to connect to the
internet, grab Qmail from some defined place and patch it.)
> d) It can't be installed "unmodified" using an automated script?
I don't understand this, too tired now?
Regards,
Joey
--
/ Martin Schulze * joey@infodrom.north.de * 26129 Oldenburg /
/ http://home.pages.de/~joey/
/ Kernel-Patching in DOS? Selten so gelacht! -- Jochen Schoof /
Attachment:
pgp0KfgHbeXcH.pgp
Description: PGP signature