Subject: Re: Postfix
To: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <email@example.com>
Date: 08/15/2000 15:22:10
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 02:49:00PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> [ On Tuesday, August 15, 2000 at 07:26:28 (-0400), Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Postfix
> > We also anticipated that the Postfix license would change for the
> > *better* (that is, become more BSD-like), not for the worse.
> If you mean that "you" thought the Postfix license would lose the terms
> requiring all contributors to grant "open access" rights (which I
Thanks for the rant, Greg, but I never thought anything like that, nor did
the people who originally integrated Postfix into NetBSD.
The original IBM Secure Mailer license was significantly less encumbering
than the GPL; its only "problem" clause was the one that required you to
stop using the software if IBM told you they'd been told it infringed a
patent. We didn't have anything with a license quite like that in the tree,
and it concerned us.
The current license is... less helpful, to someone building a binary-only
system. Those aren't all of our "customers", but they are a substantial
chunk of them, and we try to accomodate their needs.