Re: cvs commit postfix - README

Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Mike Tremaine wrote:
> 
> |   We have had to do this to honor both Kirk's wishes as the project
> | creator [to keep all filters under the MIT/X11] and Mike's wishes as
> | the author of the postfix+/amavis+ filters to have his work be GPL. I
> | will try to patch each service as much as possible will my limit
> | knowledge of this services so they do not throw to many errors at
> | next release.
> 
> Hmm. If using another open source license is a problem then the project
> may run into serious problems.
> 
> Up untill now I have given away code to logwatch "in the spirit of the
> GPL". Which means it is pretty much fair game for everyone to use as
> they see fit. Which is in my view compatible with the MIT/X11 license.
> But how many other contributers are under the impression that their code
> is added under the GPL and not under another license?
> 
> Are these contributers informed?
> 
> Mostly because some people may not like the way their contribution to
> logwatch may end up as part of commercial software. Where my concern is
> not so much the distribution makers but some vendors that sell high
> price boxes to do log analyses but may have "borrowed" a significant
> portion of the code from applications like logwatch.
> 
> Hugo

I don't think that we can say honestly that everyone has been "informed" 
  since obviously you did not know this either. The License has been 
included with the source but only recently has Kirk added the full 
header to each piece of code. This all came about when Willi Mann was 
trying to determine the License status for Debian and we had to review 
what was going on. I personally use the GPL also but in this case since 
Kirk wants the MIT/X11 I'm willing to conform with that. [Actually when 
I stop to think about Bjorn also brought up the License awhile back also 
and we fixed a few things like my install script being GPL rather then 
MIT/X11].

Yes I think we need to post it more clearly that contributions are 
required to be MIT/X11 [on the website under patches]. The sad part is 
that what really should happen is that every single patch that is 
applied should have a notice sent to the author and the acceptance of 
the License requirement sent back. At that point it becomes more over 
head then the current developers [read me] are interested in doing.

As far as commercial vendors borrowing code? I have no idea what the 
state of that is, I know there are a few out there but I have no idea 
what their products do or look like. I assume that the Genie is already 
out of the bottle if the took from the project at some point in the 
past. [At this point we are 11 years into this project.]

-Mike