>
> John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I believe he was worried about bundling issues. I guess AIX still bundle
> s
> > > MH with its OS, and they wouldn't be able to upgrade to bundling nmh unle
> ss
> > > 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.
>
> Great, so based on your "priming", what would you suggest for nmh?
For this?
*Shrug*
As a user, I like the thought I can fix it if it's broken. Not that I like
the idea of actually doing it (my ambition is to be a user of the
software, not its developer). It's also nice to be able to create the
binaries; it means I have matching source code and makes trojans less
likely.
otoh, as a programmer, I don't especially like the GPL either. However, in
this case, subject to agreement of others who can claim authorship, I
think GPL is the way to go.
At the very least, I guess you need RC's agreement. You would also need to
note that parts (such as those from mh) are subject to other arrangements.
--
Cheers
John Summerfield
http://os2.ami.com.au/os2/ for OS/2 support.
Configuration, networking, combined IBM ftpsites index.
