[linux-elitists] qmail & djbdns licensing: correction
Fri Mar 30 13:44:07 PST 2001
On Fri, Mar 30, 2001 at 01:27:32PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
>Jeremy McLeod <firstname.lastname@example.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 completely false (or at least outdated) statements like this.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.)
You misinterpreted what I said(perhaps I didn't state it clearly enough; if so,
my apologies). You are able to distribute *packages*(i.e., RPMs, DEBs,
and suchlike) that contain the pristine sources and patches to that
source. RPM and DEB both have facilities that allow for patching program
source with included patches when rebuilding a source package.
You can't untar djbdns-1.05.tar.gz, apply patches to the source, then
tar it back up and distribute it, no. Ditto for qmail. An example of a
qmail package that follows these guidelines is at
http://em.ca/~bruceg/qmail+patches/ (I posted this link before, I
And then there was the lawyer that stepped in cow manure and thought
he was melting...
More information about the linux-elitists