Re: qmail, DJB licensing

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 05:18:41PM +0200, Reini Urban wrote:
>What are the isues about qmail license restrictions now?
>
>Most know that it's vastly "superior" over other MTA's.
>(i.e. people tend to like it more)
>E.g. sourceware uses qmail
>  http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#what-software
>
>I see in the thread around
>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-05/msg01651.html,
>that qmail has no acceptable license to include it into cygwin,
>because it cannot be guaranteed that it will work reliably on that 
>"crappy platform" (simplified). Maybe just with dropping vpopmail support.
>
>Still the last word?
>Maybe provide a source package only? Igor suggested such a trick, but 
>then the thread drifted into something completely different. (RPM 
>support, ant, ...)
>
>Sergey's original porting thread
>  http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-05/msg01593.html
>also drifted into something completely different. (mysql server)
>
>Still waiting on DJB's approval?

It's vanishingly unlikely that we'll get DJB's approval.

You might check into how the netqmail does this:

http://www.qmail.org/netqmail/

They don't seem to offer binaries, so I assume the licensing problems
still exist.

Why not concentrate on sendmail or postfix instead?  These days, I don't
think qmail has anything over postfix.  I use all three and prefer
postfix.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/