Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:52:33 -0600
From: "David L. Nicol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:34:59 -0800
> From: Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I can't see any circumstances where any of Dan's sofware can be deemed
> closed source.
>
> It is not the case that all software is either open source or closed
> source. There is a broad continuum of licensing possibilities.
>
> I already mentioned an important freedom which Dan does not permit.
> The lack of that freedom means that Dan's software is not open source.
> Saying that Dan's software is not open source does not mean that it is
> closed source. Dan's software is almost open source, it just isn't
> quite all the way there.
>
> Ian
http://courier.sourceforge.net/ appears to be a GPL'd qmail clone, more or
less. Why not use it instead, you want a GPL MTA?
Huh?
I was correcting what I perceive as a vocabulary problem: Greg White
seems to want to use the term ``open source'' in a way which is
slightly but significantly different from the way it was originally
defined, and different from the way that other people use it. Using
the same term with different meanings can only lead to confusion, so I
think it's worth some effort to ensure that everybody understands and
agrees on the meaning.
I said nothing about the GPL, and I said nothing about wanting a
different MTA. If you happen to know my work (not that there is any
particular reason that you would), then my support for the GPL and the
FSF is fairly clear, but I feel that arguing the merits of various
licensing approaches would be inappropriate on the qmail mailing list.
I do think that arguing the merits of Dan's unique licensing approach
is on topic for the qmail list. However, in the message to which you
are replying, I was not talking about the merits of any licensing
approach at all.
I apologize for the overly-lengthy reply, but since you already
misunderstood me once, I want to try to preemptively avoid further
misunderstanding.
Ian
