Jason Frisvold wrote:
> 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?
Nor a modified source tarball. netqmail does not distributed a modified
source tarball.. it includes the 'official' source tarball inside its own.
And, you actually *can* distribute pre-built binaries, so long as
they're 'var-qmail' compatible.
See: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
> 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?
As far as I know, that's fine.. there are several packages that do this
already.
> 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.
The evil P word.
-Jeremy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
|