[linux-elitists] (forw) Re: Sendmail v. Qmail

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Fri Mar 24 12:27:51 PST 2000

Quoting Heather (star@betelgeuse.starshine.org):

> Perhaps a note to their Feedback team to this effect would be worthwhile.
> At least as a show of "when you're stupid - there ARE consequences."  (You 
> can quote me.)

I've had a fairly fruitful exchange with Reichard since then.  His
problem going in was that he considers qmail's licence "reasonable",
and therefore doesn't mind being sloppy about whether it's open source.

I've since then called his attention to the burgeoning problem of
proprietary software vendors sneaking their products in as "open source" 
if nobody insists on maintaining the standard definition -- the only 
definition we have -- of open source as == OSD-compliant.  I cited
Tripwire as an example and tip of the iceberg.

I also promoted _again_ the concept of "viewable source" as a term for
source-access-provided projects that aren't OSD-compliant.  I pointed 
out that the term is _not_ pejorative, just descriptive, and suggested
its use in the future for such projects.
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

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list