Re: Why sendmail rather than qmail
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 18:01:51 +0200, I wrote: On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 21:10:13 +0530, M.K.Pai wrote: Even more puzzling, why does qmail go in as non-free ? qmail is not free software. The qmail license prohibits Debian from redistributing binaries, as the require prior approval by the qmail author. It has been pointed out to me that qmail binaries are distributable under a strict set of conditions (ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/qmail/dist.html). So be it; I stand corrected. This in no way changes qmail's non-freeness. Ray -- J.H.M. Dassen | RUMOUR Believe all you hear. Your world may [EMAIL PROTECTED] | not be a better one than the one the blocks | live in but it'll be a sight more vivid. | - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Why sendmail rather than qmail
Guys, Why does slink ship with sendmail rather than qmail as default ? Further, why is only the src pkg of qmail supplied ? Even more puzzling, why does qmail go in as non-free ? I'd appreciate any insights. M.K.Pai
Re: Why sendmail rather than qmail
On Sat, May 01, 1999 at 21:10:13 +0530, M.K.Pai wrote: Why does slink ship with sendmail rather than qmail as default ? IIRC, smail, or perhaps exim is the default MTA, not sendmail. Because qmail does not meet the DFSG, the criteria for inclusion in Debian proper. Further, why is only the src pkg of qmail supplied ? Because the Debian project does not believe in signing agreements or getting permission prior to being able to redistribute binaries. Even more puzzling, why does qmail go in as non-free ? qmail is not free software. The qmail license prohibits Debian from redistributing binaries, as the require prior approval by the qmail author. Ray -- UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY, UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS. - The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
