QMAIL

[Konstantin Riabitsev]

chip wrote:
> Everyone is entitled to any opinion, but I would say this one is
> wrongheaded.  The license simply states that you may not distribute qmail in
> a modified form.  When you are distributing a code base that you don't want
> to see broken, compromised, or "embraced and extended", this is reasonable.

So.. What happens if, for example, I want to distribute qmail with 
smtp-auth enabled?

Hmm... I can't.

What about if I want to distribute it with bigdns patch, so it, say, 
doesn't break when sending/receiving mail from aol?

Darn, can't again.

How about if I want to distribute qmail with such essential patches 
as 0.0.0.0 and the like? What if I want to enable starttls?

Nope.

Like I said, the license is pretty stupid. It lets me distribute a 
source rpm with patches, but not a binary rpm without patches. Even 
though the only difference between the two is someone running 
"rpmbuild --rebuild". I think that's dumb. Really dumb. Just for 
qmail one has to keep gcc and the entire build environment 
installed, for no gain whatsoever.

Regards,
-- 
Konstantin ("Icon") Riabitsev
Duke University Physics Sysadmin
www.phy.duke.edu/~icon/pubkey.asc