[linux-elitists] (forw) Re: Sendmail v. Qmail
Fri Mar 24 11:39:11 PST 2000
Flaming asshole, eh? The corporate-moron quoting style fits, too.
----- Forwarded message from Kevin Reichard <email@example.com> -----
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 13:31:57 -0600
From: Kevin Reichard <firstname.lastname@example.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.13 i686)
To: Rick Moen <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Sendmail v. Qmail
I'm not going to get into an argument about open-source purity. The reference
Thanks for the note.
Rick Moen wrote:
> Dear Mr. Reichard:
> In http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/1640/1/ , you assert
> that both sendmail and qmail are open-source software. Unfortunately,
> that is not the case.
> Daniel J. Bernstein has consistently declined to place Qmail under an
> open-source (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html) licence. Instead, he
> offers it under terms published at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html .
> It is, of course, entirely his privilege to use whatever licence he
> wants with his work, and many people are glad to use that work under
> whatever terms Bernstein cares to specify. However, few of the rights
> expected for genuinely open-source software packages are available:
> Qmail may not be ported, debugged, extended, or otherwise changed
> without Bernstein's express approval -- nor may anyone rearrange
> Bernstein's directory layout to something saner and FHS-compliant --
> except in private, on one's own machine.
> Those looking for an open-source MTA other than sendmail _do_ have
> attractive alternatives, however -- notably exim and postfix.
> Cheers, "By reading this sentence, you agree to be bound by the
> Rick Moen terms of the Internet Protocol, version 4, or, at your
> rick (at) linuxmafia.com option, any later version." -- Seth David Schoen
Managing Editor, Linux/Open-Source Channel
----- End forwarded message -----
More information about the linux-elitists