| From: | md(at)linux(dot)it (Marco d'Itri) |
|---|---|
| To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, gecko(at)benham(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: [md: postfix license and opensource trade mark] |
| Date: | 1999-03-14 19:39:06 |
| Message-ID: | 19990314203905.F618@wonderland.linux.it |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | spi-general |
On Mar 14, "J.H.M. Dassen" <jdassen(at)wi(dot)leidenuniv(dot)nl> wrote:
[Please always Cc replies, I'm not subscribed to this list.]
>> AFAIK IBM is marketing postfix (AKA "IBM Secure Mailer") as open source,
>> even if there is a conflicting clause in the license.
>I haven't followed the discussion of the PostFix license in detail, but I
>think we should have clear answers to the following questions should be
>answered before we contact IBM officially:
>- The conflicting clause is the revocation in case of patent issues one,
> right?
Yes.
>- Does the clause actually violate the OSD, or is it an oversight in the
> OSD/DFSG? If it is the latter, is it fixed in the current DFSG revision
> proposal drafts?
I remember this has been discussed on debian-legal but I did not follow
the thread and I'm not able to comment.
>- Is the issue with PostFix only, or is it with Jikes too?
IIRC the license is the same or very similar, but I could be wrong.
--
ciao,
Marco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darren O. Benham | 1999-03-14 21:49:12 | Re: [md: postfix license and opensource trade mark] |
| Previous Message | J.H.M. Dassen | 1999-03-14 10:54:18 | Re: [md: postfix license and opensource trade mark] |