Subject: Re: Restrictions in license
From: Russell Nelson <nelson@crynwr.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 01:24:18 -0400

Rick Moen writes:
 > However, please note that Dan's licence does _not_ meets the criteria of
 > OSD clause #4, in that "patch files" may _not_ be packaged up with Dan's
 > original tarballs and distributed that way "with the source code for the
 > purpose of modifying the program at build time".

True.  With netqmail, we distribute the qmail-1.03.tar.gz unmodified
along with a shell script that applies the patch, plus documentation
all in another .tar.gz.  As a practical matter there's no impediment.

 > The "Exception" paragraph at the bottom relates to precompiled _binary_ 
 > packages with very narrowly constrained changes, not source code.

Right, which means that you can't fork the code and compile binaries,
which is why qmail isn't open source.

-- 
--my blog is at     blog.russnelson.com         | with some experience 
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok |     you know what to do.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | with more experience
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          |     you know what not to do.