On Tuesday 16 December 2003 09:05 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What was bothering me, in part were two issues.
You have talked this to death. Please stop.
If you have further doubts about Mitel's compliance with the GPL I suggest you
hire yourself a lawyer and have him/her talk to Mitel's
On 17/12/03 Les Mikesell did say:
Actually the GPL applies to any derived work that is subsequently
distributed regardless of whether you modify the original or not.
Many people have far too loose an interpretation of that. Any code ever
written in GNU Emacs, a GPL'd product, is not a derived
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
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
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,
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
