Re: qmail project now on SF

[Dave Sill <de5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rick Widmer <vchkpw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I don't have any grand ideas on how _I'm_ going to make qmail better.  I
>was just the first to think about grabbing the name when qmail became
>public domain.  My intent is to offer it to the qmail community to
>maintain the reference version of qmail.

I think taking the qmail name for a Sourceforge project is a form of
squatting. You--we--have no right to use that name. DJB shouldn't have
to tell you that.

>First, to those who don't like the idea of using qmail for the project
>name, I'm sorry.  I think it is important that the qmail name be
>continued.

A headless, community-supported project is exactly the wrong model for
a project intended to carry on the qmail tradition. It's virtually
certain to result in buggy bloatware that will only sully the qmail
name.

>It is the first place people will look, and it should be the
>version others are compared to.

Fine. Set up the project for qmail 1.03, freeze development, and
include pointers to other qmail projects like netqmail, qmailrocks,
etc.

>Please help me make it happen!  I fear
>that if there are only forks, qmail will lose critical mass and die
>off.  I don't want to change mail servers.

Your "qmail"--I'll call it "Sourceforge qmail"--will also be a fork,
name notwithstanding. If you want to prevent forking, don't fork!
Netqmail is an established, currently active fork. Sourceforge qmail
will only muddy the waters and cause duplication of effort.

>While I was trying to decide if I was going to create the project I sent
>private messages about it to Dr. Bernstein, and two of the netqmail
>developers.  So far there are no replies.

The message I got made it clear that the the qmail Sourceforge project
was a done deal. If you'd instead asked if I thought it was a good
idea, I'd have responded.

>If Dr. Bernstein would like
>ownership of the project, or asks me to discontinue it, I will respect
>his wishes. I have offered him the options.

I intend to take possession of all of your personal belongings. If you
don't reply, I'll take that as confirmation that you're OK with
that. Otherwise, the moving van will be there Friday. Sound fair? Of
course, if you don't see this message, you don't take it seriosuly,
you're too busy to reply, or my spam filters catch your reply, well,
that's too bad.

>Unless that happens I will
>assume he released it as public domain because he no longer has time for
>it, and it was done to allow qmail to remain viable into the future.

If you'd watched the video of his announcement (link was posted here),
you'd know that he's changing his copying restrictions for ideological
reasons, not because he wants everyone to make lots of modifications
and distribute them. http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html makes it clear
that he doesn't want that:

  This does not mean that modifications are encouraged! 

>I know when I no longer have time for vpopmail, or pMailAdmin I hope
>someone else takes them over.

Don't assign your motivations to DJB.

>My current plans don't go very far.  The first step will be to release
>qmail-1.05, which will be the exact same thing as you get by applying
>the netqmail-1.05 patches.  After that, everything else is up for
>discussion. (Hopefully here.)

I'm not speaking officially for the netqmail project, but I would
prefer that you not incorporate the netqmail patches or refer to
netqmail by name.

>Participation in this project is open to the qmail community, and if I
>get my way I'm just the librarian and the release manager.  Wiser
>minds than mine will decide what gets included.

What wiser mind is going to determine what gets included in
Sourceforge qmail?

>Next, according to my reading of the license and copyright on netqmail,
>I am allowed to include it within my project.  If anyone disagrees,
>please speak up!  If there are no objections before the weekend, I'll
>release qmail-1.05 as described above.

That might be legal, but it's wrong. Just like using the qmail name.

-Dave