Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Gordon Rowell wrote:
- License statement - either as per qpsmtpd or as per Perl or similar
open license
No, it really should be MIT licensed ("as per qpsmtpd") to go in the
distribution.
There are a few exceptions (only your plugins at a cursory glance), but
those are mistakes. :-)
I don't have an issue with my qpsmtpd plugins being changed to state:
=head1 AUTHOR
Copyright 2005 Gordon Rowell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This software is free software and may be distributed under the same
terms as qpsmtpd itself.
Though as a distro maintainer, we do have a sizeable issue with license
proliferation. It really is a bit of a nightmare when two licenses are
almost, but not completely, the same.
Thanks,
Gordon
