Re: Is this a free license?
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:21:30AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jim Penny <email@example.com>
> > So, does that not make qmail free?
> No. Qmail is non-free because we can't distribute modified
> *binaries*. In the case of Unicode tables, that is covered by the
> "extraction" clause.
Let me rephrase that, is the qmail-installer not free? We can
distribute the unmodified tarball. We can (and do) use the extraction
program tar. We then mechanically patch the extracted files, build,
and install the result.
I.e., suppose the post-inst of qmail-src invoked "build-qmail" and
"dpkg -i qmail" automatically; is that not exactly a distribute and
patch system? How is this incompatible with DJB's license?
How does this differ from distributing UnicodeData.txt and then patching
> Henning Makholm "Hi! I'm an Ellen Jamesian. Do
> you know what an Ellen Jamesian is?"