Lyndon Griffin writes:
> thanks everyone for the quick response... now, my next question - does it
> not seem a little extreme to say that simply
> "qmail 1.03 no longer supports inetd."
> and then link to the ucspi-tcp package, which you kinda have to figure out
> for yourself that that's what the link is trying to tell you, when it is, as
> you all say, quite possible that qmail-smptd WILL run under inetd (maybe OS
> dependent)?
Maybe we just have too high an opinion of your intelligence?
> Or is the intent of Russ and DJB to get us all downloading and using
> software which we all still argue about licensing over, which in the end
> they will come out and charge us for back usage or get the hell off?
Is there any evidence that that's {my,our,his} intent? I agree that
the lack of copyright permissions is a little unusual, but it makes
perfect sense once you understand it. You simply have no right to
copy what Dan has given you a copy of. So why include a copyright
permissions message, when it would be empty? To give people the warm
fuzzies? Get your own warm fuzzies, quit trying to take ours.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
