On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 11:54:18AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 21:30:33 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > AFAIK IBM is marketing postfix (AKA "IBM Secure Mailer") as open source, > > even if there is a conflicting clause in the license. > > I haven't followed the discussion of the PostFix license in detail, but I > think we should have clear answers to the following questions should be > answered before we contact IBM officially: [snip] > - Does the clause actually violate the OSD, or is it an oversight in the > OSD/DFSG? If it is the latter, is it fixed in the current DFSG revision > proposal drafts? I do not believe it's forbidden in the current DFSG. It has been addressed in the draft to make clauses like this non-DFSG-free.
Attachment:
pgp_l_uxq6Oz_.pgp
Description: PGP signature