Rick Widmer wrote:
> Boris Pavlov wrote:
>> Quey wrote:
>>> Dan J Bernstein has recently put Qmail into the public domain,
>>>  _http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html_
>> HAH! Is this confirmed in some way?
> What more confirmation do you need than the second paragraph from the
> URL you listed above:
> ==========================================================================
> D. J. Bernstein
> Internet mail
> qmail
> Information for distributors
> If you're a distributor, you should join the
>                                             0 mailing list.
> I hereby place the qmail package (in particular, qmail-1.03.tar.gz, with
> MD5 checksum 622f65f982e380dbe86e6574f3abcb7c) into the public domain.
> You are free to modify the package, distribute modified versions, etc.
> This does not mean that modifications are encouraged! Please take time
> to ensure that your distribution of qmail supports exactly the same
> interface as everyone else's. In particular, if you move files, please
> set up symbolic links from the original locations, so that you don't
> frivolously break scripts that work everywhere else.
> ==========================================================================
> On the other hand, what do you want to do with it now that it is public
> domain?  100 forks -- all different -- will not help the qmail world.

I think that will be the natural progression, and it will probably be a
good thing in the long run. Those who actually know qmail and understand
it's operation will provide the best packaged solutions, and those who
do not know qmail will gravitate to those products. In the end, the
cream will rise to the top.

The question in my mind is who will own the name qmail, and what
product, if any, will bear that name. I've no problem running Inter7
Super-Duper Mail Server, or Netqmail v 2.0, or ShuppMail v 1.0, or qmail
v 2.0. But there are some current installations supplying qmail
installation instructions I would not run if they provided a package. I
would prefer those didn't go by the name qmail, but it ain't up to me.


I've been asking Google for a Veteran's Day logo since 2000,
maybe 1999. I was told they finally did a Veteran's Day logo,
but none of the links I was given return anything but a
normal Google logo.

Sad, very sad. Maybe the Chinese Government didn't like it?


Reply via email to