[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