On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:34:48PM +1000, Peter Lambert wrote:
Charlie,
Are the sources Mitel are releasing sufficient to build the unsupported
developer release 6.0 ISO when compiled with other open, readily available
sources ?.
If there are Mitel proprietary sources involved, are these
Bruce,
Thanks for this message:
What is this persistent rumour about proprietary licenses? The Mitel
and E-smith sites both make it quite clear that the Developer release is
GPL and that any proprietary stuff is in the supported, commercial
release. Has anybody ever produced any evidence
Charlie,
Are the sources Mitel are releasing sufficient to build the unsupported
developer release 6.0 ISO when compiled with other open, readily available
sources ?.
If there are Mitel proprietary sources involved, are these being released in
some (binary) form that will allow the ISO to be
For those of you mirroring Darrell May's HOWTOs, you may be in
breach of copyright law,
Correct Charlie. Everyone may link to my original HOWTOs only.
I think you are misinterpreting Charlie's comment Darrell. Many of your
HOWTO's don't include a license, a copyright holder, or even an
Again, I make my documentation available, and I'd like others to do so as
well. But it is important to keep the expectations reasonable, and legal.
I agree and good to hear Brad. It makes little sense, IMO, to license
HOWTO's and misc. documentation under anything but a free license. It
Sorry,
Another question - when you publish an RPM, where do you stipulate that
it is under the GPL? On the page you download from? or in the .spec file?
--
Regards
Brandon Friedman
Cell:083 408 7840
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.bfconsult.co.za
--
Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Brandon Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Another question - when you publish an RPM, where do you stipulate that
it is under the GPL? On the page you download from? or in the .spec
file?
Definitely in the .spec file (I believe it's the License tag), but
on the download page wouldn't
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Dan Brown wrote:
With the caveat that this is not legal advice, etc., you are not
required by the GPL to send your changes to the author as such.
However, you must make source (including the spec file) available to
anybody you give a binary to.
No, it's actually
Australian Personal Computer December2001 reviewed the
mitelSME under the catagory of general server
replacements and gave it a Highly recommended rating.
The caveat being loss of flexibility and stability
when adding extra software.
SME makes it, in theory, reasonably easy to add
software via
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 14:51, stephen noble wrote:
Australian Personal Computer December2001 reviewed the
mitelSME under the catagory of general server
replacements and gave it a Highly recommended rating.
The caveat being loss of flexibility and stability
when adding extra software.
[...]
Which page? I've got Decemeber 2001 APC in front of
me, but saw nothing about SME...
pp90 just guessing
the network appliance, general server replacement
is this indicative of how SME is marginalised due to
it's lack of expandability, when a review is buried so
deepy a fan misses it.
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:33, stephen noble wrote:
Which page? I've got Decemeber 2001 APC in front of
me, but saw nothing about SME...
pp90 just guessing
the network appliance, general server replacement
Still can't find it...
is this indicative of how SME is marginalised due to
it's
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 Rob Hills wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:33, stephen noble wrote:
Which page? I've got Decemeber 2001 APC in front of
me, but saw nothing about SME...
pp90 just guessing
the network appliance, general server replacement
Still can't find it...
The SME review
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001 15:55, Rob Hillis wrote:
Which page? I've got Decemeber 2001 APC in front of
me, but saw nothing about SME...
pp90 just guessing
the network appliance, general server replacement
Still can't find it...
Got it now... page 100..
is this indicative of how SME is
- Original Message -
From: Rob Hillis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: stephen noble [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Not necessarily... I'm not all that impressed with the new format of APC, and
as a result, I only skim through it nowadays, so it's quite possible that I
missed it...
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Justin Funke wrote:
- Now back to this blade thing. Please excuse my lack of understanding on
the details of GPL I've never had to read this deep into it before.
Say I write a package that integrates an IDS into the VME5. If it is at all
based on any GPL code I am
-Original Message-
From: Justin Funke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 1:35 PM
Subject: RE: [e-smith-devinfo] e-smith.com (was Re: [e-smith-devinfo]
SME Server V5 with ServiceLink announced)
- Now back to this blade thing. Please excuse my lack of
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Smith, Jeffery S (Scott) wrote:
Third, you are not required to deliver source code with the program, nor to
make source code publically available as for example via anonymous ftp. You
must make source code available for three years TO THOSE TO WHOM YOU
DISTRIBUTE IT,
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Brady [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] GPL issues (was: e-smith.com (was: SME
Server V5 with ServiceLin k announced))
Not so. Consult a nearby copy of COPYING. There you will find
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Trevor Ouellette wrote:
code. Mailing or shipping costs are also ok.
Just my 2 cents... :-)
Which may well be ample to cover your cost, assuming that you are shipping
via email.
Even if that is the correct interpretation, this does not mean that just
because someone
20 matches
Mail list logo
