DAve wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
"Dan Bernstein (qmail's author) only gives permission for qmail to be
distributed in source form, or binary for by approval. This package
has been put together to allow people to easily build a qmail binary
package for themselves, from source.
This package builds a binary .deb that is FHS compliant and conforms
to the Debian standards guidelines. The resulting binary packages are
not suitable for re-distribution. "
Yes, just like netqmail, DJB's 'license' allows for the final effect
that you can get from software using 'approved licenses'. You get the
modified source code and build scripts necessary to create the
binaries you want without politics about proprietary extensions or
what not. Plain and simple.
Very much unlike other licenses that attempt to lay on restrictions
outside of copyright law.
Sorry, should have been more clear. Your point was my point, I see no
problem here.
Oh I did not have a problem, I was just adding to your example to point
out that DJB's 'license' could even be freer than stuff like the GPL
with the exception of redistribution of modified binaries.
|