[linux-elitists] qmail & djbdns licensing: correction

Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com
Fri Mar 30 13:27:32 PST 2001

I'm sorry, but I'm obliged to withdraw my acknowledgement of an
(alleged) earlier error:

Jeremy McLeod <jeremym@loonix.org> wrote:

> Wrong. You're not able to distribute _binary_ packages of Dan's
> software that vary from the layout and behavior that installing those
> packages from pristine source would have.

> You are able to distribute source packages containing whatever patches
> and scripts to apply those patches and change installation paths you
> desire. Please read the relevant documentation before making
> completely false (or at least outdated) statements like this.

Licensing information for qmail (changeable at Dan's whim, as previously
noted) is stated at http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html.  Licensing
information for for djbdns/dnscache (changeable, ditto) is stated at

Neither gives _any_ permission for distribution of modified source code
archives.  Both give permission for (among other things) distribution 
of source code archives with Dan's original MD5 checksums.  (Ports are
specifically forbidden without Dan's explicit permission, too.)

I don't keep up on all the details of Dan's licensing, as I pretty much 
lost interest after no longer needing to administer qmail as part of my

I did notice an amusing admonition in the qmail source archive:

djb>  Under Linux, make sure that all mail-handling filesystems are
djb> mounted with synchronous metadata.

Of _course_ all Linux-using qmail devotees mount /var/qmail with the
"sync" flag.  <snicker>

Rick Moen     (who's glad he uses a mail spool format capable of being
rick@linuxmafia.com  migrated when Northpoint shuts him off.  Unlike some.)

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list