license submission: qmail

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> If you can point me at a vibrant open source community laboring under
> such conditions, I'll rest my case; however, I just don't see how
> it's possible.

Why does it have to be 'vibrant'?  All it needs are a few members in
the community.

> Given the huge # of patches in the qmail community and the degree of
> overlap between them and the stability of the underlying pristine
> source (djb does somewhere around a release every two years), I'd
> expect to see it there, but I don't.

Well, what do you mean by 'vibrant'?  That people *make* patches, and
that there are a huge number of patches, is a lot more 'vibrant' than
some open source projects.

> > I think that "...software built from modified source code..." implies
> > *binaries* built from modified source code fairly clearly.  Which is
> > not allowed.
> 
> DJB allows for binaries of modified source to be created, if they meet a
> set of conditions.

Which are incompatible.  For instance, DJB makes quite clear that 'fair
use' is insufficient for free (or open source) software, in
http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html - "As long as you're not distributing
the software...."  Further, the 'set of conditions' boils down to his
approval, which is contrary to open source - 

	The license must explicitly permit distribution of software
	built from modified source code.

The qmail license does NOT explicitly permit distribution of software
built from modified source code.
-- 
 Matthew Weigel
 Research Systems Programmer
 weigel+ at pitt.edu