| Lists: | spi-general |
|---|
| From: | md(at)linux(dot)it (Marco d'Itri) |
|---|---|
| To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Subject: | [md: postfix license and opensource trade mark] |
| Date: | 1999-03-13 20:30:33 |
| Message-ID: | 19990313213033.A3387@wonderland.linux.it |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Lists: | spi-general |
Please Cc replies, I'm not subscribed to spi-general.
--
ciao,
Marco
| From: | "J(dot)H(dot)M(dot) Dassen" <jdassen(at)wi(dot)leidenuniv(dot)nl> |
|---|---|
| To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org |
| Cc: | md(at)linux(dot)it, gecko(at)benham(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: [md: postfix license and opensource trade mark] |
| Date: | 1999-03-14 10:54:18 |
| Message-ID: | 19990314115418.A11430@ultra5.wi.leidenuniv.nl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Lists: | spi-general |
On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 21:30:33 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> 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?
- 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?
- Is the issue with PostFix only, or is it with Jikes too?
> I think debian or SPI should officially complain:
SPI holds the Open Source cerficiation mark, not Debian. What Debian can do
is to take this issue into account in the next DFSG revision.
Ray
--
ART A friend of mine in Tulsa, Okla., when I was about eleven years old.
I'd be interested to hear from him. There are so many pseudos around taking
his name in vain.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
| 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 |
| 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: | "Darren O(dot) Benham" <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org, md(at)linux(dot)it, gecko(at)benham(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: [md: postfix license and opensource trade mark] |
| Date: | 1999-03-14 21:49:12 |
| Message-ID: | 19990314134912.A5096@darren.benham |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox |
| Lists: | spi-general |
On Sun, Mar 14, 1999 at 11:54:18AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 21:30:33 +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > 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:
[snip]
> - 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 do not believe it's forbidden in the current DFSG. It has been addressed
in the draft to make clauses like this non-DFSG-free.