qmail license issue

qmail license issue

[Gerald Pfeifer]

In a message to the GCC steering committee RMS noticed the following
today:

  It looks like gcc.gnu.org is using Qmail, a non-free mailer, to handle
  the mail on bug-gcc.
  [...]
  I think it would be better to use gnu.org for this.

I suppose that in the medium to long term there are really just two
szenarios: move to a different mail server/list manager combo on
gcc.gnu.org or migrate the gcc lists to gnu.org.

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: qmail license issue

[Zack Weinberg]

Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:

> In a message to the GCC steering committee RMS noticed the following
> today:
>
>   It looks like gcc.gnu.org is using Qmail, a non-free mailer, to handle
>   the mail on bug-gcc.
>   [...]
>   I think it would be better to use gnu.org for this.
>
> I suppose that in the medium to long term there are really just two
> szenarios: move to a different mail server/list manager combo on
> gcc.gnu.org or migrate the gcc lists to gnu.org.

Migration to gnu.org servers is not a good idea, witness the problems
we've had with the web mirror.

The Debian folks managed to do a smooth transition from qmail to
postfix when a similar concern was raised about their list archives;
they might have advice.

Option 3 is to tell RMS to go jump in a lake.

zw

Re: qmail license issue

[Phil Edwards]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:42:03AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> Migration to gnu.org servers is not a good idea, witness the problems
> we've had with the web mirror.

Hear, hear.  I don't know any of the gnu.org admins, I don't know their
situation (workload vs resources).  I do know that response times for
problems is relatively slow; unacceptably slow for gcc.gnu.org.

> The Debian folks managed to do a smooth transition from qmail to
> postfix when a similar concern was raised about their list archives;
> they might have advice.

...smooth enough that I didn't notice.  This is the first time I heard of it.

> Option 3 is to tell RMS to go jump in a lake.

One which I would support in this situation.  I myself occasionally take
flack for using a program from graphviz to make the libstdc++ doxygen pages,
because for somebody out there, it's free, but not free /enough/.

My standard hostile response is:  give me RMS-anally-retentive-free software
with equivalent functionality and ease-of-use, and I'll switch to it in
a flash, otherwise STFU.  (acronym expansion:  "go jump in a lake")

Postfix may fit the "equivalent functionality and ease of use" requirement.
I have no idea, never used it.


Phil, who uses qmail

-- 
To bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.
    - Moses Seixas and George Washington

Re: qmail license issue

[Jason Molenda]

I don't want to sound like I'm putting my foot down -- I don't
have any time to fix even the most basic hiccups on sourceware
recently so it's not like I'd be doing any of the work -- but
IMHO it's far too much effort to switch MTAs and I would not do
it.  qmail has been very, very good to us these past five years.

I've heard good things about Postfix, but given that we have an
MTA that is brilliant and works woderfully all the time, I cannot
justify the incredible amount of work necessary to migrate because
Bernstein's license is annoying.

I most certainly don't represent the majority view or the official
view of the maintainers, if such a thing existed.


Jason

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:42:03AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
> 
> > In a message to the GCC steering committee RMS noticed the following
> > today:
> >
> >   It looks like gcc.gnu.org is using Qmail, a non-free mailer, to handle
> >   the mail on bug-gcc.
> >   [...]
> >   I think it would be better to use gnu.org for this.
> >
> > I suppose that in the medium to long term there are really just two
> > szenarios: move to a different mail server/list manager combo on
> > gcc.gnu.org or migrate the gcc lists to gnu.org.
> 
> Migration to gnu.org servers is not a good idea, witness the problems
> we've had with the web mirror.
> 
> The Debian folks managed to do a smooth transition from qmail to
> postfix when a similar concern was raised about their list archives;
> they might have advice.
> 
> Option 3 is to tell RMS to go jump in a lake.
> 
> zw

Re: qmail license issue

[Christopher Faylor]

[reply-to set]
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:52:15AM -0400, Phil Edwards wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:42:03AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> 
>> Migration to gnu.org servers is not a good idea, witness the problems
>> we've had with the web mirror.
>
>Hear, hear.  I don't know any of the gnu.org admins, I don't know their
>situation (workload vs resources).  I do know that response times for
>problems is relatively slow; unacceptably slow for gcc.gnu.org.
>
>> The Debian folks managed to do a smooth transition from qmail to
>> postfix when a similar concern was raised about their list archives;
>> they might have advice.
>
>...smooth enough that I didn't notice.  This is the first time I heard of it.
>
>> Option 3 is to tell RMS to go jump in a lake.
>
>One which I would support in this situation.  I myself occasionally take
>flack for using a program from graphviz to make the libstdc++ doxygen pages,
>because for somebody out there, it's free, but not free /enough/.
>
>My standard hostile response is:  give me RMS-anally-retentive-free software
>with equivalent functionality and ease-of-use, and I'll switch to it in
>a flash, otherwise STFU.  (acronym expansion:  "go jump in a lake")
>
>Postfix may fit the "equivalent functionality and ease of use" requirement.
>I have no idea, never used it.

Postfix and Mailman (we'd need both) are definitely nice.  I've
administered postfix a little and I like the Mailman administrative web pages.
I'm sure Postfix could deal with the mailing list volume.

The only thing I don't like is the headache of switching over.  I'd have
to rewrite all of the spam filtering stuff to use mailman, move all of
the archives into mailman format (whatever that is), etc.  I'm just not
interested.  This is not broken.  It doesn't need to be fixed.  Besides,
this would take me away from my highly rewarding career as an email archive
editor.

These RMS edicts might be easier to take if, just once, they included a
"I appreciate all of the work you're doing, know that you're a
volunteer, and that your time is limited, but..." Those words probably
wouldn't change my mind, but it would make me a least slightly more
receptive to the idea.

cgf

Re: qmail license issue

[Zack Weinberg]

Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:

>>My standard hostile response is:  give me RMS-anally-retentive-free software
>>with equivalent functionality and ease-of-use, and I'll switch to it in
>>a flash, otherwise STFU.  (acronym expansion:  "go jump in a lake")
>>
>>Postfix may fit the "equivalent functionality and ease of use" requirement.
>>I have no idea, never used it.
>
> Postfix and Mailman (we'd need both) are definitely nice.  I've
> administered postfix a little and I like the Mailman administrative web pages.
> I'm sure Postfix could deal with the mailing list volume.

Just for the record, as a user, I do *not* like Mailman.  I don't like
getting junk mail every month, I don't like having to fire up a web
browser to subscribe or unsubscribe, and mhonarc is the only
web-mail-archive program I've ever seen that gets the damn threads
right.

zw

Re: qmail license issue

[Phil Edwards]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:04:14PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> The only thing I don't like is the headache of switching over.  I'd have
> to rewrite all of the spam filtering stuff to use mailman, move all of
> the archives into mailman format (whatever that is), etc.

Ugh.  Any "solution" that breaks URLs pointing into the existing mailing
list archives must, I feel, be rejected out of hand, unless there's a handy
redirection script that the webserver can use.  There're simply too many
references to the archives out there now.

> I'm just not interested.  This is not broken.  It doesn't need to be fixed.

*sounds of agreement*

> Besides,
> this would take me away from my highly rewarding career as an email archive
> editor.

It's probably safest to ban the luser in question from all sources.redhat
mailing lists.  You know, just to be extra safe that he isn't going to screw
up again and then blame us for it.  We could even market it as a feature.


Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams

Re: qmail license issue

[Gerald Pfeifer]

First of all, please note that I'm just the bearer of bad news here,
but let me try to explain the situation.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Migration to gnu.org servers is not a good idea, witness the problems
> we've had with the web mirror.

Indeed I made RMS aware of these problems (and had argued for keeping
GCC at gcc.gnu.org=sources also several times in the past).

> Option 3 is to tell RMS to go jump in a lake.

Seriously, option 3 is RMS telling you/us to go jump in a lake and
having gcc.gnu.org removed from DNS.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Phil Edwards wrote:
> Hear, hear.  I don't know any of the gnu.org admins, I don't know their
> situation (workload vs resources).  I do know that response times for
> problems is relatively slow; unacceptably slow for gcc.gnu.org.

I agree, and that's why I always have been able to argue that keeping
gcc.gnu.org as is strictly preferrable.

> Postfix may fit the "equivalent functionality and ease of use"
> requirement. I have no idea, never used it.

Postfix is great, we switched to it at work some time ago and have been
satisfied ever since; still, I'd hardly switch a perfectly working system
of the size and complexity as gcc.gnu.org

I'd expect switching _mailing_ _lists_ to be much more painful.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Jason Molenda wrote:
> but IMHO it's far too much effort to switch MTAs and I would not do it.
> qmail has been very, very good to us these past five years.

Recall how vastly the situation improved when we switched from sendmail
to qmail, and how all of us were very happy campers back then! :-)

The problem here is just djb and his license policy.

> I most certainly don't represent the majority view or the official
> view of the maintainers, if such a thing existed.

I'm afraid neither would be relevant here if RMS formally requests that
the GCC SC committee addresses this issue, and I understood his mail that
way. :-(

Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: qmail license issue

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 09:09:55AM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>
>>>My standard hostile response is:  give me RMS-anally-retentive-free software
>>>with equivalent functionality and ease-of-use, and I'll switch to it in
>>>a flash, otherwise STFU.  (acronym expansion:  "go jump in a lake")
>>>
>>>Postfix may fit the "equivalent functionality and ease of use" requirement.
>>>I have no idea, never used it.
>>
>> Postfix and Mailman (we'd need both) are definitely nice.  I've
>> administered postfix a little and I like the Mailman administrative web pages.
>> I'm sure Postfix could deal with the mailing list volume.
>
>Just for the record, as a user, I do *not* like Mailman.  I don't like
>getting junk mail every month, I don't like having to fire up a web
>browser to subscribe or unsubscribe, and mhonarc is the only
>web-mail-archive program I've ever seen that gets the damn threads
>right.

The monthly email option is configurable.  I think you can subscribe/unsubscribe
using email if you want.  And, we could still use mhonarc for the archives if
we wanted.

Not that I'm advocating this, of course.

cgf

Re: qmail license issue

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:12:09PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>I'd expect switching _mailing_ _lists_ to be much more painful.

Bingo.  Switching the MTA is not a huge problem.  The mailing lists would
be a real headache.  Ezmlm has the same license as qmail, right?

cgf

Re: qmail license issue

[law]

In message <20030428170419.GB603@redhat.com>, Christopher Faylor writes:
 >On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:12:09PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
 >>I'd expect switching _mailing_ _lists_ to be much more painful.
 >
 >Bingo.  Switching the MTA is not a huge problem.  The mailing lists would
 >be a real headache.  Ezmlm has the same license as qmail, right?
I believe it does.  I also believe ezmlm is closely tied to the qmail MTA.

jeff