[lug] mail servers

[Sean Reifschneider]

On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 08:14:02AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
>My understanding is that qmail doesn't follow restriction #3, "Derived
>Works".
>
>If you use "open source" in some unspecific way, well, then it can
>mean whatever you want.  IMO it is better to use the term in its

If you're talking about Open Source, you should do the proper caps thing.
QMail does seem to follow rule #3, becuase it does allow patches.  Re-read
#4, "Integrity of The Author's Source Code".

   Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be
   readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine
   base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made
   available but readily distinguished from the base source.

DJB doesn't have any problem with the SRPMSs that include the base code plus
a bunch of patches.  As the main web site for QMail includes links to
hundreds (?) of patches for QMail, I'd have to say that DJB is encouraging
the use of them.

Sean
-- 
 Memory is like an orgasm. It's a lot better if you don't have to fake it.
                 -- Seymore Cray, on virtual memory
Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <jafo at tummy.com>
tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python