Subject: Re: Another reason to go GPL
From: Daniel E. Lautenschleger (dan@www.molbio.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 27 2001 - 13:44:13 EST
Well, I'd say we really don't have a long history of companies just
itchin' to help with Netatalk anyways.
-Dan
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Bruce A. Burdick, Jr. wrote:
> A reason not to go GPL: companies will be less likely to assist with
> development if they can't release their own version without being
> _compelled_ to give away everything they've done on it.
>
> Perhaps Samba should consider the BSD license.
>
> GPL: please don't.
>
> -B...
>
> > From: andrew morgan <morgan@orst.edu>
> > Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 09:55:37 -0800 (PST)
> > To: <netatalk-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, <netatalk-admins@umich.edu>
> > Subject: Another reason to go GPL
> > Resent-From: netatalk-admins@umich.edu
> > Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 13:04:14 -0500 (EST)
> >
> >
> > Here's another reason we should go GPL with netatalk. Samba has a piece
> > of code which does quotas on Veritas File Systems which I need to use at
> > our site. Same problem as the file locking code though. We can't take
> > GPL code and place it in netatalk without releasing netatalk as GPL.
> >
> > I may be able to get permission from the author of that particular piece
> > of code to include it in netatalk anyways, but the samba project itself
> > will not release the code for our use.
> >
> > GPL - just do it. :P
> >
> > Andy
> >
>
>
--Daniel E. Lautenschleger University of Wisconsin R.M. Bock Laboratories Network Administrator and Computer Support dan@www.molbio.wisc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:35 EDT