About a month ago I came across a university using squirrelmail for one of their departments. They had renamed the software and gave no mention of squirrelmail - yet it was obvious it was. My question is: Is it a violation of the GPL when a group renames (as in University Mail 2.0) and claims squirrelmail as their own and gives no mention of the original source?
I've always been under the impression that one must at least give mention of the project itself so that others can know. Is this true, or am I way off base here. To me there just seemed something wrong with what they are doing. Maybe you the developers don't care however.
No, that's not necessary. They can take the code and change the name if they please. They also don't have to openly advertise that they took it from the squirrelmail project. They will only be in violation of the GPL if they re-release the software (in whole or in part) under a different license or refuse to provide the source code to their users when asked. This is the nature of the GPL -- it's free for all as long as the result is still free for all.
Regards,
--
Konstantin ("Icon") Riabitsev
Duke Physics Systems Admin, RHCE
I am looking for a job in Canada!
http://linux.duke.edu/~icon/cajob.ptml
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn -- squirrelmail-users mailing list List Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] List Archives: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=2995 List Info: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/squirrelmail-users
