[Dovecot] Re: delivery agent in 1.0?

[Matthias Andree]

"Mark E. Mallett" <mem at mv.mv.com> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 05:52:12PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On 23.12.2004, at 16:06, Branko F. GraÄ.nar wrote:
>> 
>> >Is there any plan to include delivery agent in 1.x?
>> 
>> I'll need to implement one in next few months, so yes.
>> 
>> Hmm. This brings to my mind again that it would need Sieve, and mvmf 
>> might be a good base for it, but it's still not open source (Mark? :)
>
> Only because I'm too lazy to deal with thinking about terms, certainly
> that was more true a year ago when it was less well developed.  And

Some questions you might want to ask yourself before picking a license:

1. do you want to make the license "contagious", i. e. are derivative
   works required to be under an open-source license? (GPL for instance)

2. should the license state anything about patents?

3. a. should derivative works be required to bear a different name?
   b. is a statement that it is a modified work sufficient that names a new
      support address?
   c. do you want to require an advertising clause?  

> maybe because I'm not clear on the what the problems are with the terms
> right now.  e.g. qmail is "closed" in similar way.  But all the source
> code is there for the taking.

qmail is dead, the author doesn't have interest in fixing the bugs (he's
occasionally still active denying them, same for most of the other
software he wrote, say djbdns), and the route "distribute original
tarball, patch and a helper script" that net-qmail follows doesn't seem
too popular. Not a big deal, there are good alternatives. Courier, Exim,
Postfix, to name them in lexicographical order.

The Debian Free Software Guidelines and www.opensource.org and the
'picking a license' (not sure of the exact title) document from
ibiblio.org/Linux should help you figuring out the popular licenses and
a VERY rough overview of their differences.

HTH,

-- 
Matthias Andree
(haven't yet looked at mdmv)