Quoted from Adam McKenna [15 Nov 2000]:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2000 at 01:14:15PM +1300, Chris K. Young wrote:
> > ``The [licence] must
> > explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source
^^^^^^^^^^
> > code.''.
>
> qmail conforms loosely to the OSD, there is a footnote to section 4 that
> (ambiguously) states that licenses that allow third party distribution of
> patches conform.
Allowing patches is necessary, but it's not sufficient. Debian's Free
Software Guidelines has a similar clause, and I see no other clause
that DJB's licence conflicts with. If I go by your statement, why is
qmail listed under the non-free section?
> The main problem is that qmail doesn't really have a
> "license" that ships with it. All people have to go on is public remarks
> made by Dan, http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
I say that dist.html should be considered authoritative. There are
references in the qmail and djbdns documentation that contain the
URL to their respective pages.
---Chris K.
--
Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't
Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer.
GnuPG: CCC6114E/706A6AAD |_ ---Tracy R. Reed
