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
r gpl.
--
bkw
-Original Message-
From: "Thomas Guyot-Sionnest"
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:44am
To: rsync@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: cwRsync got killed...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12-03-07 05:17 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 3:05 PM,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12-03-07 05:17 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 3:05 PM, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote:
>>
>> What I have:
>>
>> c787dfa854775793d1a1b5c3502b57b5 *cwRsyncServer_4.2.0_Installer.zip
>>
>> I will make it available for download if it's still missi
On 3/7/2012 3:05 PM, Thomas Guyot-Sionnest wrote:
On 17/02/12 01:58 PM, grarpamp wrote:
Side question: Does anyone know the probability of generating a file with
the same md5 and sha256 which is still looks valid with the expected content
Uhh, zero. Problem is, the author never bothered with o
On 17/02/12 01:58 PM, grarpamp wrote:
>> Side question: Does anyone know the probability of generating a file with
>> the same md5 and sha256 which is still looks valid with the expected content
>
> Uhh, zero. Problem is, the author never bothered with or knew about
> PKI signatures. So the hashes
> Side question: Does anyone know the probability of generating a file with
> the same md5 and sha256 which is still looks valid with the expected content
Uhh, zero. Problem is, the author never bothered with or knew about
PKI signatures. So the hashes on the web could be wrong.
Note also that th
).
Side question: Does anyone know the probability of generating a file
with the same md5 and sha256 which is still looks valid with the
expected content (including the manually unpacked nullsoft installer
inside the zip)?
Jou
Original-Nachricht
Betreff: Re: cwRsync got
generating a file
with the same md5 and sha256 which is still looks valid with the
expected content (including the manually unpacked nullsoft installer
inside the zip)?
Jou
Original-Nachricht
Betreff:Re: cwRsync got killed...
Datum: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:43:29 +0200
In , on 11/25/11
at 02:29 PM, "Benjamin R. Haskell" said:
Hi,
>> But they killed their sourceforge downloads, all, including past
>> versions of cwrsync, including source.
>That seems pretty antisocial of them.
Interesting. They are allowed to do what they want with the binaries, but
the
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011, Joachim Otahal (privat) wrote:
Last cwrsync was 4.1.0, current is 4.2.0.
It was avail on sourceforge.
Itefix.no decided "we want money for coding and support" - that itself
is not wrong. Though _I_ never needed any rsync help on neither linux
and windows (including mixed
Last cwrsync was 4.1.0, current is 4.2.0.
It was avail on sourceforge.
Itefix.no decided "we want money for coding and support" - that itself
is not wrong. Though _I_ never needed any rsync help on neither linux
and windows (including mixed) scenarios.
But they killed their sourceforge downloa
11 matches
Mail list logo
