Re: approved patches

Hello,

On Wed, 26.05.2004 at 14:58:04 -0600, Charles Cazabon <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Which of the patches can/should go into a qmail binary distro:
> None.  djb has not granted rights to distribute binaries for /any/ build of
> qmail other than vanilla, qmail-1.03.tar.gz (i.e. a compliant, var-qmail
> distribution).  

I'm not quite sure about that any longer since I discovered a package
named netqmail which is put together by Charles Cazabon, Dave Sill,
Henning Brauer, Peter Samuel, and Russell Nelson, and which includes at
least errno and QMAILQUEUE.

> Note that arguments such as "qmail won't run on system X without patch Y" mean
> that you cannot distribute a binary of qmail for system X.  Period.

I'd like to know if this is package counts as "vanilla" enough to go
through:

http://qmail.mirrors.space.net/netqmail/

If DJB even approves of QMAILQUEUE (which I find indispensable), I'm
hard pressed to believe that he disapproves of fixing real breakage
like errno, but a statement to clarify that would be nice. Charles, you
are listed as one of the contributors to netqmail, so I guess you have
an opinion on the legal status of this package? Is it the modified name
that you think makes things sufficiently legal, or do you have a
statement about it by DJB? So far I thought of netqmail as a
semi-official maintenance release of qmail.


Best,
--Toni++