Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 22:48:45 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Shapiro <shimon@simon-shapiro.org> To: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG, (jack) <jack@germanium.xtalwind.net> Subject: Re: Sendmail going commercial, and ? Message-ID: <XFMail.980317224845.shimon@simon-shapiro.org> In-Reply-To: <199803180614.BAA16353@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18-Mar-98 John S. Dyson wrote:
> jack said:
>>
>> I don't. Not your post specifically, but the tone of the thread
>> has been to imply that with the release of a commercial version
>> sendmail will immediately have to be ripped from the tree in its
>> entirety.
John,
I completely agree with every word you wrote below. I fail to see the
exact fit to this particular thread, so please help me understand (as a
core member who does not officially represent core in this matter :-)
The way I understand the Sendmail announcement, is that new, future,
versions will be commercially encumbered. What is in our tree is not (I
cannot see how it could be).
Now, if we choose to just maintain this code base, we have no problem.
Sendmail has been around for some decades now and should be pretty stable.
It is safe to assume that new, replacement versions are not essential
anymore. If we choose to bring in a new, commercial version, then we will
violate many spoken and unspoken rules of this wonderful project.
If we find ourselves in a situation where we have to replace sendmail with
unencumbered code, I volunteer to write it. I do not enjoy such work in
particular, but will do it for the good of the project. I promise to make
the code Berkeley license, before I write the first line.
I am sure some better, smarter person will beat me to the punch, but you
can have me in reserve.
So where do you see us stand:
a. No problem at all, business as usual
b. We only sustain existing sendmail, and defer replacement until the code
athrophies enough (via missing new functionality, or just age)
c. We want to replace sendmail asap, but have a replacement in mind.
d. We need to start a new MTA project.
e. Something else which Simon did not think about.
> As a member of -core, (but not officially speaking for -core) I can say
> that we *like* commercial software. However, we also don't want (and
> will not allow) a slippery slope to happen such that critical run-time
> pieces of FreeBSD will become commercially encumbered (such as GPL or
> worse.)
>
> If various components of UNIX clones can be enhanced and commercialized,
> so that the code is more useful, and people are willing to pay for
> the enhancements, I cannot see any problem with that. One of the things
> that makes FreeBSD valuable is that it is relatively unencumbered. The
> day that FreeBSD becomes significantly encumbered will be the day that
> I will no longer be able to justify working on it very much. I suspect
> that most other FreeBSD contributors will agree with me.
>
> It would be extremely self-destructive for significant parts of FreeBSD
> runtime to be encumbered. It just won't happen, or if so, it will
> likely kill the project. Note that one reason why Kirk's adoption
> of Ganger + Patt's work got developed (and completed) was because Kirk
> could justify his effort, by making some money. It would be terribly
> self destructive if the base FreeBSD system would be so encumbered that
> projects like Kirk's would never be able to happen. I believe that
> people
> like him need to keep the option to be able to profit on their work in
> various creative ways.
>
> So it is important to seperate "add-on's" from the base system. I think
> that it is cool that people can spend time and money to develop
> sophisticated
> add-on's. However, for that to be possible, there has to be a free
> software
> base for them to create the add-ons. Eventually, some of the add-on's
> will
> become closer to true BSD-free, but that will be after the developers
> make
> whatever $$$ they think that they can make.
>
> Again, we *must* keep the license(s) for the base system as simple and
> free as possible. Tricky or confusing licenses scare corporate lawyers
> (and smart business people) away. The FreeBSD core team can not
> allow tricky, confusing, or non-BSD-style licenses into the BASE system
> code. This attitude has nothing to do with philosophy, but mostly has
> to do with long term survival of the project.
>
> --
> John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
> dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid,
> jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig.
----------
Sincerely Yours,
Simon Shapiro
Shimon@Simon-Shapiro.ORG Voice: 503.799.2313
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.980317224845.shimon>