Are sendmail-license (used by mail/sendmail* and mail/libmilter) and
sendmail-open-source-license (used by mail/dk-milter, mail/dkim-milter)
sufficiently different to keep them both? Running textproc/wdiff over both
licenses shows that the difference is mainly in word choice, punctuation
and capitalisation.
Both {dk,dkim}-milters packages, although hosted by Sourceforge, are from
Sendmail Inc as well, and I don't think the licenses are intentionally
different.
(Currently, to build these, you have to accept both licenses, due to their
dependency on libmilter.)
They seem different enough that I'm a bit nervous about this. Perhaps
this could be brought to the attention of the sendmail people and they
could be asked to fix it?
We could also put both licenses in the sendmail-license file with a
comment that they are similar and being treated in aggregate.
The sendmail website is stunningly devoid of any useful licensing
information.
It's interesting that it's called an 'open source' license, but it does
not appear approved by FSF or OSI. The license is unusual; it seems to
be that one can give binaries at no charge, or GPL-like with no rules on
charging. But it does seem to be Open/Free, or at least intended to be.
So I wonder if we've asked them to submit it for approval, and where
Debian stands on DFSG compliance of the licenses.
I'd be happy to drop them a note asking for clarification and if they've
submitted the licenses for approval.
Attachment:
pgpzTGB9LQBqH.pgp
Description: PGP signature