On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:52 pm, Michael P. Soulier wrote: > On 16/12/03 [EMAIL PROTECTED] did say: > > 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. > > *blink* > > 1. smeserver 6.0 unsupported works fine. The 6000 MAS + blades works > better. > > 2. We need not "consider" packages from RedHat as having any particular > license. The license in each and every case is very clearly stated. > Assuming that every package from RedHat is licensed under the GPL, we > are free to build upon those packages without releasing that code, as > long as we do not modify that code. Any modifications to GPL'd code have > been released, and will continued to be released upon request. However, > as Charlie so clearly pointed out, we are _not_ required to release any > of our proprietary work. You have a clear misunderstanding of the nature > of the GPL, and I suggest you follow Charlie's suggestion and go read it > again.
Oh I understand the GPL. I also understand you are, or could be, using some items as LGPL. That is quite evident. And I am going to take it on faith and your assurance above that you (Mitel) have throughly made sure you are in compliance with due care and due-diligence. I have no reason to believe otherwise. What was bothering me, in part were two issues. 1 - That everyone here understand just *EXACTLY what they are getting. You have done a good job, along with Charlies reply to me what this release will entail. It is much better than just saying the often touted blanket statements such as Charlie and other Mitel employees had in much earlier emails. Many people did not understand just what programs would be released. In private emails I have gotten on this subject some people WERE expecting some of the programs outlined in Charlies' most immediate email to this list to be a part of the released source code ! That there was confusion, and that it , at least in part, will be alleviated is a good thing. In other words; I am very happy we could flush this out and get some specifics, and that Charlie was willing to do so is wonderful. Therefore I am, of course, no longer bothered by this. 2- That the specifics of including parts of other works to make up your proprietary code would entail the LGPL. Other than the modular kernel, I am not personally aware that libs and other derivative works released under GPL can be made part of another program that is proprietary without such libs and other programs being used as LGPL. *When* this is allowed, then MItel, of course, has a prefect right to do so. I am not bothered that you are using the GPL in any way inappropriately. If that is what you have gotten out of my emails, then you need to relax and not be concerned. I am *not* saying that, nor have I said that. But, again, I was making sure that everyone here was prepared for these issues and that certain programs would not be a part of the source code being being released into GPL and this new community effort. Since this is accomplished, I am no longer bothered by this either. Thanks to Charlie for goading me into talking about these specifics. Also; thank you and Charlie again for illuminating these very specific examples and the terms by which you are interpreting the GPL, and thereby what you are specifically reserving to Mitel's use only and what you are releasing under GPL. Very best regards; Bob FInch > > Regards, > Mike -- 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
