Hello,
while having explicit permission for item XYZ, I decided that
the following page and related pages on Dan's site should be
sufficient:
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/rights.html
On 09/15/1999 13:12 +0100, Petr Novotny ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It's nice that you know the licence for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 24 Sep 99, at 15:21, Toni Mueller wrote:
Hello,
while having explicit permission for item XYZ, I decided that
the following page and related pages on Dan's site should be
sufficient:
ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/rights.html
We're
Chris Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Surely also, since you haven't accepted the 'new' contract you can still
(under basic copyright law) modify the software etc. and thus bypass the
bit that asks you to accept the new terms anyway.
Basic copyright law, by my reading, does not grant you the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17 Sep 99, at 5:15, Russ Allbery wrote:
Surely also, since you haven't accepted the 'new' contract you can still
(under basic copyright law) modify the software etc. and thus bypass the
bit that asks you to accept the new terms anyway.
Petr Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And you said that the copyright law is the same all over the world:
*Mostly*. There are differences, particularly in the areas of exceptions
for particular types of works, and I think the US law is considerably more
complicated in the area of audio
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 02:05:14AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So my non-lawyer *opinion* is that you're not required to destroy the
software, you still have a legal copy, and you're permitted to make
archival and backup copies of it and run it as many times as you want to
see that dialog
There is proposed new law on the matter--recent revisions to the
Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2B, a/k/a UCITA (Uniform Computer
Information Transactions Act). It has been approved by the National
Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Law and will be introduced
in most state
Just to reiterate, I already accepted the only *legally and ethically
binding* contract on the transaction that resulted in my getting
a copy of the software.
Surely also, since you haven't accepted the 'new' contract you can
still (under basic copyright law) modify the software etc. and
So then the assumption is that all qmail users subscribe to - and read -
every message on this list. Not only that, new users have also gone back
and read every message that was ever posted.
And if they would, they would find threads like this. Take
it off line pleese.
--
"Racer X" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hate to jump in late here, but to both sides: where exactly does DJB say he
doesn't support inetd? i can't seem to find anywhere in the source or on
his site. in fact, the main qmail.html page sez:
"qmail's design inherently limits the machine load, so
n my state where we have a referrendum and initiative.
-Original Message-
From: James J. Lippard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 1999 6:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
There is proposed new law on the matter--recent
The decision to not support inetd was made after qmail 1.03 was
released and
was announced on this list. I assume that the documentation will be
corrected in the next version.
I think it is incorrcet to say that djb/qmail does not support inetd
anymore. Indeed, even in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
have you seen
http://www.securityportal.com/direct.cgi?/closet/closet19990915.html
Anyone cares to comment?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP 6.0.2 -- QDPGP 2.60
Comment: http://community.wow.net/grt/qdpgp.html
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 09:31:14AM +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
have you seen
http://www.securityportal.com/direct.cgi?/closet/closet19990915.html
Anyone cares to comment?
* qmail is not painful to configure and maintain.
* the qmail license may be unclear in some points, but I can't see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Sep 99, at 11:09, Magnus Bodin wrote:
have you seen
http://www.securityportal.com/direct.cgi?/closet/closet19990915.html
Anyone cares to comment?
* qmail is not painful to configure and maintain.
Depends. I have had no problems
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 11:42:45AM +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
... for something better. BTW, if you couldn't configure sendmail
properly, odds are that you will have problems with
qmail/postfix/whatever too.
I somewhat disagree with that statement. I always had trouble
understanding
Petr Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Sep 99, at 11:09, Magnus Bodin wrote:
have you seen
http://www.securityportal.com/direct.cgi?/closet/closet19990915.html
Anyone cares to comment?
*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Sep 99, at 13:07, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
... for something better. BTW, if you couldn't configure sendmail
properly, odds are that you will have problems with
qmail/postfix/whatever too.
I somewhat disagree with that statement. I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Sep 99, at 11:21, Robin Bowes wrote:
But some important parts are really missing. What's the licence for
daemontools? For rblsmtpd? For qmail-analog? Am I allowed to start my
syslogd or rc5des client under supervise if I haven't installed
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Petr Novotny wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Sep 99, at 11:21, Robin Bowes wrote:
But some important parts are really missing. What's the licence for
daemontools? For rblsmtpd? For qmail-analog? Am I allowed to start my
syslogd or
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 07:30:34 -0400 (EDT), Vince Vielhaber wrote:
I don't know that Dan's actually come up with licensing terms for the
remaining items. I know that he knows that I'm using tcpserver for more
than just qmail-smtpd. We've discussed it at length. I'm using it for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 15 Sep 99, at 8:53, Fred Lindberg wrote:
www.pobox.com/~djb/rights.html:
"I don't know which of these theories will succeed in court. I also
don't think you should have to care. So I promise I won't sue you for
copyright violation for
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:01:38 +0100, Petr Novotny wrote:
That's about something different: That's about some lame theory
which says that if you're requesting a document by http, you're
making a copy and you need authorization. I fail to see
daemontools-something.tar.gz as a document.
Of
Some companies don't want to have to make that argument :)
-Original Message-
From: Fred Lindberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 3:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Kurt's Closet on qmail
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 16:01:38 +0100, Petr Novotny
www.pobox.com/~djb/softwarelaw.html:
"Once you've legally downloaded a program, you can compile it. You can
run it. You can modify it. You can distribute your patches for other
people to use. If you think you need a license from the copyright
holder, you've been bamboozled by Microsoft. As long
But some important parts are really missing. What's the licence for
daemontools? For rblsmtpd? For qmail-analog? Am I allowed to
start my syslogd or rc5des client under supervise if I haven't
installed qmail?
These aren't anything to do with qmail. They're all seperate programs by
Hmmm. Inetd under OpenBSD 2.5 consistently envokes the qmail-1.03 smtpd
daemon. I don't run daemontools, ucspi-tcp or tcpserver.
I also had qmail running under solaris 2.6 (x86 ver) without the above
requirements?
So what gives? Is it that qmail-1.04 won't work with inetd?
One last note, as
qmail runs fine under inetd. It is just not officially supported by the
author or by this mailing list.
The reason it's not supported is because of the large differences in tcpd and
inetd between the different unices. These differences can sometimes cause
support headaches.
--Adam
On Fri,
qmail works just fine under inetd. It is just that Dan and most people on
this list will no longer support you if you have problems getting it
configured in the first place if you are trying to use inetd. There are
too many busted inetd implementations out there.
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Josh
othy L. Mayo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 10:44 AM
To: Josh Pennell
Cc: Lyndon Griffin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Kurt's Closet on qmail
qmail works just fine under inetd. It is just that Dan and most people on
this list will no longer support you if you h
Lyndon Griffin writes:
thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it
not seem a little extreme to say that simply
"qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd."
and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you kinda have to figure out
for yourself that that's
"Lyndon Griffin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it
not seem a little extreme to say that simply
"qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd."
and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you kinda have to figure out
for yourself
Dave Sill had the thought that...
"Lyndon Griffin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But they are something to do with qmail, and not just because they have djb
in common. Any newb stopping by this list or reading on of the how to's
will get the following information: get qmail, but to make it
Rumor has it that Lyndon Griffin may have mentioned these words:
"A little extreme"? Perhaps. But there's a fine line between saying "X
works" and saying "X is supported". DJB tends to say what he means, so
when he says "X is unsupported", that shouldn't be interpreted as "X
doesn't work".
"Lyndon Griffin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right - but what the web page says is not this
"qmail 1.03 users and web site no longer support inetd"
but rather this
"qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd"
That is about the most misleading statement I have ever read. Say what you
mean
Russell Nelson writes:
Lyndon Griffin writes:
thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it
not seem a little extreme to say that simply
"qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd."
and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you kinda have to figure out
for
Not really... qmail out of the box doesn't support inetd. There are
configuration changes you have to make *on your own* to get it to
work, and
the web site doesn't support or explain these changes. (I'm sure that if
you wanted to support inetd stuff on this list, no-one else here
would
0
Software Architect| 1900 Los Angeles Avenue, 2nd Floor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Simi Valley, CA 93065
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
- Original Message -
From: Lyndon Griffin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 15 Sep 1999 13.24
Subject: RE: Kurt's Closet on
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 01:24:28PM -0700, Lyndon Griffin wrote:
There you have it... "make setup check" doesn't add/change that line in
inetd.conf for you, but other than that it looks pretty "out of the box" to
me. Then, to read that in conjunction with the statement on the web site IS
((DOH - Sorry, Adam, for the double))
The decision to not support inetd was made after qmail 1.03 was
released and
was announced on this list. I assume that the documentation will be
corrected in the next version.
So then the assumption is that all qmail users subscribe to - and read -
Magnus Bodin wrote:
The most important statement to all administrators and OS distributors out
there is to finally DUMP sendmail.
We have a linux distribution that is nearing beta and have removed sendmail
entirely
Sendmail has been replaced with qmail and it is hoped all will benifit
Eric Rahmig writes:
Russell Nelson writes:
Lyndon Griffin writes:
thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it
not seem a little extreme to say that simply
"qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd."
and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you
Obviously, it is necessary. By linking to ucspi-tcp and telling
people that inetd is no longer supported, that should be taken as a
clue for what to do next. Since this is obviously not obvious, I need
to point out why I consider that such a link is an indication of the
high esteem in
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:27:28PM -0700, Lyndon Griffin wrote:
The decision to not support inetd was made after qmail 1.03 was
released and
was announced on this list. I assume that the documentation will be
corrected in the next version.
So then the assumption is that all qmail
Maybe we just have too high an opinion of your intelligence?
Come on, is this kind of comment really necessary? Good grief.
No... especially not when no-one has too high an opinion of anyone ELSE's
intelligence ;)
To ask a quick question (to try and keep on the topic):
When I read through
Actually, I have to agree that the wording that "qmail 1.03 no longer
supports inetd" seems to mean that qmail 1.03 doesn't work with inetd. But
the web site (at least as of this moment) has perfectly clear wording:
Inetd is no longer recommended for use with qmail 1.03. Use tcpserver
James J. Lippard writes:
Actually, I have to agree that the wording that "qmail 1.03 no longer
supports inetd" seems to mean that qmail 1.03 doesn't work with inetd. But
the web site (at least as of this moment) has perfectly clear wording:
Inetd is no longer recommended for use
Petr Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW, how's that really with the licence to Postfix? Are you allowed to
distribute your patches?
Yes.
Patched postfix?
Yes.
In binary form?
Yes.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
Petr Novotny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 15 Sep 99, at 8:53, Fred Lindberg wrote:
www.pobox.com/~djb/softwarelaw.html:
"Once you've legally downloaded a program, you can compile it. You can
run it. You can modify it. You can distribute your patches for other
people to use. If you think
Mirko Zeibig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 05:01:06PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
If that's how it works in the United States, that's probably also how
it works in other countries. If that's not how it works in other
countries, that's probably not how it works in the
craig [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was told last night by an IP lawyer that "click-through licenses have
been upheld in court".
Yes, I believe that's been the case for a while. A click on ACCEPT
appears to be legally roughly equivalent to the signature on a contract,
provided you can prove
There is proposed new law on the matter--recent revisions to the
Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2B, a/k/a UCITA (Uniform Computer
Information Transactions Act). It has been approved by the National
Conference of Commissioners for Uniform State Law and will be introduced
in most state
52 matches
Mail list logo
