On Thu, 28 May 2009 09:12:28 -0600 LuKreme <krem...@kreme.com> wrote:
> On 28 May 2009, at 03:56, Ralf Hildebrandt > <ralf.hildebra...@charite.de> wrote: > > > Turns out Wietse was wrong: > > http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/334866/fffe7b1a0716c0e4/ > > Would it be approriate to ask what the issues are with postfix's > license? I hate to admit it, but I've never read it. The issue is the GPL-like clause: A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: <snip of standard non-warranty/liability/etc> iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange. I'm not sure why that's such a big deal. But it is to some. But that's at least as much religious as political... and as mouss points out, end-users generally don't care (unless of course, they have their own religious views on the matter).
