>
> I believe he was worried about bundling issues. I guess AIX still bundles
> MH with its OS, and they wouldn't be able to upgrade to bundling nmh unless
> they followed the GNU rules and included the source code and such (which I
> don't believe they do for any other pieces of their OS). IBM may not be at
> all interested in upgrading to nmh _regardless_ of its license, though --
> who knows...
the copyright holder retains the right to release hist code under any
combinations of conditions that seem convenient: to you, GPL. To IBM a
commercial licence for which they pay heaps to hide the source code;-)
It becomes a little messy when there are patches from third parties
included unless those third parties relinquish their rights to the owner
of the original work.
I'm feeling a bit primed up on this, having been in discussions recently
on two other lists. The arguments seem sensible to me, though I'm not a
lawyer.
The second discussion was wrt cups (www.cups.org) where the site
explicitly states that you can have it under PL or a commercial licence.
Someone on the list saw this as a diminution of his rights.
Remember, too, that IBM is releasing its own open-source code these days;
there's jikes (high-speed java compiler), jfs (journalling filesystem),
currently implemented on AIX and OS/2 is being released under GPL for
Linux. It's more likely a bureaucracy and/or procedures issue (how do we
support this but not that?) than policy these days.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
