On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:09 pm, Charlie Brady wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 07:37 pm, Charlie Brady wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 16 December 2003 11:11 am, Gordon Rowell wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 08:30:58AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > It has been a long wait for some packages, and it is nice to see. > > > > > > > > > > Please provide specifics - you presumably have packages in mind > > > > > with such a statement - what are they? > > > > > > > > Is this is truely important, now that it appears that you have > > > > complied with releasing everything ? > > > > > > For the most part, there is nothing to "comply" with, Bob. Mitel is the > > > copyright holder to the e-smith-* packages in the SME server. The GPL > > > does not apply to Mitel for these packages, and Mitel is under no > > > obligation to release the source. When it does so, it is a gift, to you > > > and the community. The GPL attached to these packages is the license > > > that Mitel gives you. > > > > Once again, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say thank you > > for supplying the source code. > > > > As to packages that were not forthcoming in the past, and ONLY because > > you guys can't seem to leave my thank you lie still, ... > > It was you that raised the issue, Bob.
Well yes and no. Others were/are also interested, including some not otherwise sending mail to this reflector concerning these things. > > > here's a partial list of the items that were , as of quite recently, not > > forthcoming with source; > > > > ServiceLink 6.0 - based on Mitel SME Server (GPL) > > As I carefully explained to you previously, the fact that Mitel releases > its SME Server code to you under the GPL does not create any obligation > for it to release its own ServiceLink code to you. Where Mitel has used > software which is licensed to it by others, Mitel will comply with the > appropriate licenses, as has been stated previously. > > > Blades: > > -- Fax Server Blade - based on mgetty+sendfax (GPL) > > The mgetty and mgetty+sendfax RPMs are from RedHat. Source RPMs are > available to you on request, or you can fetch them from your local RedHat > mirror. The Blade itself is Mitel proprietary. > > > -- Free/Busy Scheduling Blade - based on Mitel SME Server (GPL) > > As mentioned previously, the "based on Mitel SME Server" is irrelevant. > The Free/Busy Scheduling Blade is Mitel proprietary software, and source > code will not be made available. > > > -- Groupware Blade - based on Twig (GPL) > > The Groupware Blade is not based on Twig, but includes Twig as one of its > components. Twig source code is available on request, or you can obtain a > slightly newer version from http://www.informationgateway.org/, or > in RPM format from http://rpmfind.net/. The other components of the > Groupware blade are Mitel proprietary. > > > -- Instant Messaging Blade - based on Jabber (GPL) > > The Instant Messaging Blade is not based on Jabber, but includes Jabber as > one of its components. Jabber source code is available on request, or can > be obtained from http://www.jabber.org/, or in RPM > format from http://rpmfind.net/. The other components of the Instant > Messaging Blade are Mitel proprietary. > > > -- Web Access Control Blade - based on Squidguard (GPL) > > The Web Access Control Blade is not based on Squidguard, but includes > Squidguard as one of its components. Squidguard source code is available > on request, or you can obtain a newer version from > http://www.squidguard.org/, or in RPM format from http://rpmfind.net/. The > other components of the Web Access Control Blade are Mitel proprietary. > > > And, as I said in the previous message, there were reasons given in the > > past as to why they were not forthcoming, but I am glad that Mitel is now > > releasing this source as it should do with it being in GPL. > > Bob, I'd strongly suggest that you carefully read the GPL and the FSF > commentary on the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html), so that > you can better understand what the license means to us all. So what constitutes a working SME system is not ALL going to be released into open-source AND you are considering parts of SME and/or Red Hat as LGPL in some cases to make this determination. Thank you again Charlie for being so illuminating. It is good that you can speak to the specifics and I am glad you have taken the time and encouraged me to be specific so we can ALL see your replies above. I seriously doubt we need to discuss this further here or in private. Very best regards; Bob Finch > > -- > Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/ > Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 > > A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. > Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? > > > -- > Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues > Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Searchable archive at > http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Searchable archive at http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
