
   [1]D. J. Bernstein
   [2]Internet mail
   [3]qmail

                         Information for distributors

   If you're a distributor, you should join the [4]qmaildist mailing
   list.

   You may distribute copies of qmail-1.00.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum
   d3033be700fd6f59ac0548c832652dd3.

   You may distribute copies of qmail-1.01.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum
   1f606d6a5d1caaca6da6b6fa5db500bf.

   You may distribute copies of qmail-1.02.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum
   01071fe52b5257adb4bb6bcf8149eb16.

   You may distribute copies of qmail-1.03.tar.gz, with MD5 checksum
   622f65f982e380dbe86e6574f3abcb7c.

   Vendors: I'd be interested in hearing about any CDs that include the
   package, but you don't have to check with me if you don't want to.

   If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports,
   no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval.
   This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your
   intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant
   information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you
   want to distribute.

   Exception: You are permitted to distribute a [5]precompiled var-qmail
   package if (1) installing the package produces exactly the same
   /var/qmail hierarchy as a user would obtain by downloading, compiling,
   and installing qmail-1.03.tar.gz, fastforward-0.51.tar.gz, and
   dot-forward-0.71.tar.gz; (2) the package behaves correctly, i.e., the
   same way as normal qmail+fastforward+dot-forward installations on all
   other systems; and (3) the package's creator warrants that he has made
   a good-faith attempt to ensure that the package behaves correctly. It
   is [6]not acceptable to have qmail working differently on different
   machines; any variation is a bug. If there's something about a system
   (compiler, libraries, kernel, hardware, whatever) that changes qmail's
   behavior, then that platform is not supported, and you are not
   permitted to distribute binaries.

   [7]D. J. Bernstein

                            Software user's rights

   In the United States, once you own a copy of a program, you can back
   it up, compile it, run it, and even modify it as necessary, without
   permission from the copyright holder. See [8]17 USC 117.

   For example, after purchasing a copy of Microsoft Windows NT 4.0
   Workstation---which is a poorly tuned version of NT 4.0 Server, minus
   a few utilities---you can back it up, apply a small patch that fixes
   the tuning, and run the result.

   Microsoft hates this. Of course, Microsoft could restrict your rights
   by demanding that you sign a contract before you get a copy of Windows
   NT, but this would not do wonders for Windows sales.

   So Microsoft puts a ``license'' on all of its software and pretends
   that you don't have the right to use the software unless you agree to
   the ``license.'' You can't patch Windows without their permission,
   according to the license; you can't use NT Workstation for more than
   10 simultaneous connections; you must give Microsoft your first-born
   son. (Or something like that.)

   The problem with Microsoft's license is that it's unenforceable. You
   can simply ignore it. Microsoft can't win a copyright infringement
   lawsuit: you own the software that Microsoft sold you, and Congress
   gave you the right to use it.

   Ten years ago, the SPA convinced Louisiana to subvert the will of
   Congress by passing a law that declared shrinkwrap licenses
   enforceable. In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), this law
   was struck down. Federal copyright law preempts state law.

   The SPA didn't give up. It keeps arguing in court that, gee, if all
   these software makers claim that you can't use the software without a
   license, then they can't all be wrong, can they? (Ignore the fact that
   they're willingly selling their software to the public.)

   The SPA lost again in Step-Saver but then won in ProCD. I expect the
   Supreme Court to step in within the next few years to resolve the
   dispute in favor of Vault and Step-Saver.

Patches

   According to the CONTU Final Report, which is generally interpreted by
   the courts as legislative history, ``the right to add features to the
   program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition''
   falls within the owner's rights of modification under section 117.

   Note that, since it's not copyright infringement for you to apply a
   patch, it's also not copyright infringement for someone to give you a
   patch. For example, Galoob's Game Genie, which patches the software in
   Nintendo cartridges, does not infringe Nintendo's copyrights. ``Having
   paid Nintendo a fair return, the consumer may experiment with the
   product and create new variations of play, for personal enjoyment,
   without creating a derivative work.'' Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp
   1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992).
   See also Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989).

Free software

   What does all this mean for the free software world? Once you've
   legally downloaded a program, you can compile it. You can run it. You
   can modify it. You can distribute your patches for other people to
   use. If you think you need a license from the copyright holder, you've
   been bamboozled by Microsoft. As long as you're not distributing the
   software, you have nothing to worry about.

Other countries

   The European Software Directive (adopted by the UK in 1992) gives
   users the freedom to copy, run, modify, and reverse-engineer lawfully
   acquired programs.

Links

   1. http://cr.yp.to/djb.html
   2. http://cr.yp.to/mail.html
   3. http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html
   4. http://cr.yp.to/lists.html#qmaildist
   5. http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html
   6. http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html
   7. http://cr.yp.to/djb.html
   8. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html
