> Joshua Megerman wrote:
>> On Saturday 23 February 2008 01:55:14 pm Nick Bright wrote:
>>> While the qmail sources are available, it is not GPL. It's my
>>> understanding that the way qmail is licensed specifically forbids
>>> repackaging.
>>>
>> Um, no. As the original poster stated qmail is now
Joshua Megerman wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 01:55:14 pm Nick Bright wrote:
While the qmail sources are available, it is not GPL. It's my
understanding that the way qmail is licensed specifically forbids
repackaging.
Um, no. As the original poster stated qmail is now in the public domai
On Saturday 23 February 2008 01:55:14 pm Nick Bright wrote:
> While the qmail sources are available, it is not GPL. It's my
> understanding that the way qmail is licensed specifically forbids
> repackaging.
>
Um, no. As the original poster stated qmail is now in the public domain,
which means the
While the qmail sources are available, it is not GPL. It's my
understanding that the way qmail is licensed specifically forbids
repackaging.
Serhiy wrote:
Hello,
Now, when Qmail sources are in public domain don't you think that it
makes sense to release not bundle containing Qmail already in