br...@aljex.com schrieb:
Not that I have any say but I agree on both counts.
That is, I think it's ok for the 4.2.0 source not to be provided by them now,
if they are not supplying the 4.2.0 binaries now, but at least at the time they
were providing 4.2.0 binaries under gpl, then at that time at least they were
obligated to make the matching source available. I don't know how long those
obligations last after the fact. I can't imagine that you are obligated for
example to provide a web host and all that that implies for the rest of your
life just because you once wrote a hello world under gpl.
Well, I don't agree on them not providing their last version.
Bus since we have version 4.20 of both in binary, client and server (at
least I have them, thx to the donator) aaand their nsis script, I'd say
it is not worth going the full way. It was fine as long as they got
provided, it was a nice service, and it shouldn't be that difficult to
create a package on my own, as soon as I get my ass up
*g*^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d have time.
Jou
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list.
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
