[CentOS] MS Exchange Replacement

Mon Apr 7 13:22:25 UTC 2008
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 07/04/2008, at 10:10 PM, Simon Jolle wrote:
>> 2008/4/7, Rudi Ahlers <Rudi at softdux.com>:
>>> Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>>>> What is the closest open source mail server I can replace exchange with
>>>> that provides the nearest equivalent in user experience?
>>> What about Zimbra or Scallix?
>> Both not Open Source
>> Scalix uses Scalix Public License (SPL) and Zimbra uses Yahoo Public
>> License (YPL) - both crap licenses and not OSI approved.
>> cheers
>> Simon
> Open Source does not depend on the license. You've been drinking the GPL 
> koolaid too long if you think this is the case.
> Without turning this into a religious debate that I can see on the 
> horizon, you should really read this:
>         http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> Comparing the Zimbra licensing (http://www.zimbra.com/license/) to the 
> definitions in the link above, Zimbra seems to fit the definition of 
> Open Source...

It does NOT fit the definition ... mainly because of the Attribution 
requirements ... if it DID fit the defination, it would be approved by 
the OSI.  It was rejected as an OSI license.  Here is one discussion:


Really though, whether or not it fits with YOUR definition of "Open 
Source" or Simon's or mine is not relevant ... the only FACT is that the 
OSI has not approved either license (and both asked for approval). What 
that means to each user is not really relevant to this list.  The OSI 
only matters to people who think it matters, and to others it does not.

> The Scalix license 
> (http://www.scalix.com/community/opensource/licensing.php) may also fit 
> the bill...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080407/922d458f/attachment-0005.sig>