Greetings,
Can someone clarify this for me? I tried replying to another thread
and, unfortunately, gmail suddenly decided to start marking the
qsecretary notices as spam and I missed replying to it.. At any rate,
here's a copy/paste of the original..
On 28 Feb 2007 09:15:26 +0100, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
qmail is "free as in freedom". You are free to run it, modify it, and to
distribute your modifications. DJB's restrictions don't restrict these
essential freedoms.
Actually, I'd like to ask a question regarding this. And it may just
be a misunderstanding by me.
As I understand it, the licensing for qmail basically says that you
can distribute the source code, distribute patches to the source code,
but not distribute any binary copies. Is that accurate?
Based on that, would I be allowed to distribute an SRPM with the
original source and all my patches? (Please, no flamewars about my
choice of packager) Or does that violate the licensing?
It's a bit confusing because I know that the netqmail package exists
that kinda does this same thing. It packages everything together as a
collection of patches with the original source. Then a single script
goes through the patching process for you and leaves you with a fully
patched source that can be compiled and installed. SRPMS just
automate that a bit further and install the software as well.
I believe there's another package that distributes qmail in a binary
form, though the name escapes me at the moment. However, I think
that's a known issue as that's definitely not allowed. I've see some
brief discussion of that here.
So, all in all, am I correct in my statements, or am I missing something?
--
Alan Mackenzie (Ittersbach, Germany)
--
Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
XenoPhage0@gmail.com
http://blog.godshell.com
|