From: gordonr@gormand.com.au
Subject: Re: Submitting plugins (was Re: New plugin: denybounce)
Date: January 24, 2006 9:02:35 PM PST
To: ask@develooper.com
Cc: gavin@openfusion.com.au, qpsmtpd@perl.org
Message-Id: <43D7066B.3050106@gormand.com.au>
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Gordon Rowell wrote:
- License statement - either as per qpsmtpd or as per Perl or similar open license
No, it really should be MIT licensed ("as per qpsmtpd") to go in the distribution.
There are a few exceptions (only your plugins at a cursory glance), but those are mistakes. :-)
I don't have an issue with my qpsmtpd plugins being changed to state:
=head1 AUTHOR
Copyright 2005 Gordon Rowell <gordonr@gormand.com.au>
This software is free software and may be distributed under the same
terms as qpsmtpd itself.
Though as a distro maintainer, we do have a sizeable issue with license proliferation. It really is a bit of a nightmare when two licenses are almost, but not completely, the same.
Thanks,
Gordon
r4216@g5: ask | 2006-01-24 23:12:21 -0800
merge license fix from trunk
git-svn-id: https://svn.perl.org/qpsmtpd/trunk@603 958fd67b-6ff1-0310-b445-bb7760255be9
48059c122c