Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
Just some observations about my interpretation of the GPL. Perhaps they won't be terribly popular, but hopefully it'll make a few people *think*. IANAL, I am a software engineer. I am also not an OSS zealot. My philosophy tends more towards Cluetrain than anything else. On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, guitarlynn wrote: Personally, I would be against something similar to a company taking a LEAF CD/IDE release, putting a closed-source web-configuration application on it, and selling it unless a large amount of the core distribution was also re-written. I am against adding one or two packages to a stock GPL'ed release and selling it as opposed to simply selling the package that they are offering. The current development of anti-virus/email-scanning for commercial use is an example of something that is fine with me they are selling their own code/package. Then perhaps the license you are desiring is not the GPL. The GPL _does_ allow binaries to be sold[1] just as long as the distributor also provides machine readable source[2] in a similar fashion -- downloadable if the binary was available online, on physical media if the binary was distributed on physical media, etc. [There is no requirement for an exact parallel, just similarity and machine readable]. The reason that most GPL'd software is free-as-in-beer is that once it's in the wild, who's going to pay for it? And if there's a value proposition without need for charging for the binary or source in the first place, why do it? IMHO, you cannot restrict anybody from taking your GPL'd package and codistributing it with a closed source binary. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents your scenario as long as they honor the rules of the GPL, ie. providing source for all the open source bits that make up the distribution. Worse, if it is not apparent how to get that source from you, they can cause a lot of trouble. Wording your license to prevent this case is itself a violation of the GPL. One more point to ponder. What if the whizzy closed source application were a piece of hardware? Would you object to Fred's Router Appliances, Inc. shipping a free copy of LEAF, including source and development environment with every box? The GPL is, at best, an insurance policy. Insurance that your code will live as long it's useful enough to somebody willing to maintain it. Perhaps you'd prefer Shared Source? ... Didn't think so. John [1] Up to the cost of distribution. [2] Pointing requestors to the upstream source is NOT good enough. The distributor is required to provide the sources THEY use. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 11:43, John Klar wrote: Just some observations about my interpretation of the GPL. Perhaps they won't be terribly popular, but hopefully it'll make a few people *think*. [2] Pointing requestors to the upstream source is NOT good enough. The distributor is required to provide the sources THEY use. John, Would this apply to our packages (.lrp) also? If so, nearly all of our packages are non-compliant. If I recall correctly, source of packages only compiled (not modified) by us (LEAF) or the Linux Router Project were always pointed upstream. I think Mathew Grant was the only one to include package source along with .lrp packages he produced. If this describes the situation correctly, it gives us even more incentive to migrate to a ports/gento based system for our .lrp packages. -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 12:20, Mike Noyes wrote: On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 11:43, John Klar wrote: Just some observations about my interpretation of the GPL. Perhaps they won't be terribly popular, but hopefully it'll make a few people *think*. [2] Pointing requestors to the upstream source is NOT good enough. The distributor is required to provide the sources THEY use. John, Would this apply to our packages (.lrp) also? If so, nearly all of our packages are non-compliant. If I recall correctly, source of packages only compiled (not modified) by us (LEAF) or the Linux Router Project were always pointed upstream. I think Mathew Grant was the only one to include package source along with .lrp packages he produced. If this describes the situation correctly, it gives us even more incentive to migrate to a ports/gento based system for our .lrp packages. -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ Dave Cinege used to post snapshots of his LRP development tree, including sources of (all?) compiled applications. Ah: I see it is still available from ftp://www.linuxrouter.org/linux-router/dists/2.9.8/source/ Personally, I don't care whether sources are provided directly or upstream as long as they are publicly accessible. Unfortunately, this is not always the case for LEAF releases, which can include binaries compiled from modified sources, where the modifications are not publicly available. -Richard --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Sunday 14 July 2002 14:20, Mike Noyes wrote: On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 11:43, John Klar wrote: Just some observations about my interpretation of the GPL. Perhaps they won't be terribly popular, but hopefully it'll make a few people *think*. [2] Pointing requestors to the upstream source is NOT good enough. The distributor is required to provide the sources THEY use. John, Would this apply to our packages (.lrp) also? If so, nearly all of our packages are non-compliant. If I recall correctly, source of packages only compiled (not modified) by us (LEAF) or the Linux Router Project were always pointed upstream. I think Mathew Grant was the only one to include package source along with .lrp packages he produced. AFAIK, in my understanding the SRC should be availiable where the binary is downloaded (linked is acceptable). Script is it's own SRC code. We've avoided problems by readily making the code available when requested (via mailing-list), though this probably isn't legal per the license. I believe all of Charles' packages are availiable legally since he links the src from the package download area of his site. The SRC does _not_ have to be available within the package itself. IMHO, you cannot restrict anybody from taking your GPL'd package and codistributing it with a closed source binary. There is nothing in the GPL that prevents your scenario as long as they honor the rules of the GPL, ie. providing source for all the open source bits that make up the distribution. Worse, if it is not apparent how to get that source from you, they can cause a lot of trouble. Wording your license to prevent this case is itself a violation of the GPL. Very true, I was simply giving my opinion and personal feelings, not a legal interpretation to the license. I am free to give my blessing and encouragement to whomever I want. I did not make this clear, which I apologize for. A company could very easily do something like this legally, but I would not encourage it. One more point to ponder. What if the whizzy closed source application were a piece of hardware? Would you object to Fred's Router Appliances, Inc. shipping a free copy of LEAF, including source and development environment with every box? Not at all. I believe the company is giving due credit to the software in this instance. If they claimed the software was entirely theirs, I would feel otherwise. I believe that the GPL states that you cannot modify existing GPL code and license it as closed-source. Again, this is my interpretation of the license and my opinion not withstanding anyone else interpretation or opinion. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 13:16, Richard Doyle wrote: Personally, I don't care whether sources are provided directly or upstream as long as they are publicly accessible. Unfortunately, this is not always the case for LEAF releases, which can include binaries compiled from modified sources, where the modifications are not publicly available. Richard, If true, this is unacceptable. Please email a list of packages that have upstream modifications of GPL code to me off-list. Include as much information about the package as possible. I'll attempt to contact the person who compiled the package, and try to resolve the situation. Thanks. Everyone, Any modification of GPL upstream source while creating a LEAF package mandates release of the modified code. Preferably the modified source should be released in a source tarball with changelog. Alternately, source can be provided in your cvs devel tree. I thought everyone understood this. -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 15:45, guitarlynn wrote: On Monday 08 July 2002 08:55, Mike Noyes wrote: Corporate Affiliates proposal: I'd like us to start affiliating with corporations. However, I'm unsure of the point where we should consider a company for affiliation. Do they need to provide code resources and a link back to us for consideration, or just a link back to us? Examples: *Echogent: fwlog.pl cgi-script, Echowall, ftp white paper, Scott Best is a project member. * SeSame: Mosquito image, various packages, Webadmin, and reciprocal link. * Bits Over Atoms: Reciprocal link to us. Lynn, Thanks for the feedback. :-) I was hoping these proposals would generate more discussion than they have. I'd really appreciate additional feedback from our project members. I don't want to start affiliating with companies or create a consultants list, if it's going to upset our project members. If they're gleaning LEAF GPL'ed code and charging for it, it would seem fair (fill in the blank). :-( Would you elaborate on this? How does it apply to the corporate affiliation idea above? Paying for Consulting and site setup is fine with me (I do a little of this), but sale of the software (and in particular closing of code) is quite another, IMHO. Agreed. Licenses should be followed. Consultant List proposal: I'd like us to create a web page with links or contact information of consultants willing to contract for LEAF installations. Should we use the linuxports.com site for listings, or something else? This sounds good to me. I really don't know how consultants could be qualified by the project though. It could be rather easy to get over your head in a short-term project. I'm not proposing certification by our project of consultants. I think a list consultants willing to work on LEAF release/branch release would be useful to our users. It may also help some of our project members bring in some additional revenue. -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
I definitely have opinions on all of this but have been waiting to see the response from others as I am the most junior involved. From: Mike Noyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Fri 7/12/2002 10:31 AM I'm not proposing certification by our project of consultants. I think a list consultants willing to work on LEAF release/branch release would be useful to our users. It may also help some of our project members bring in some additional revenue. I think this is a great idea but agree that it would be complicated and dangerous for the project to get involved with any kind of certification or even indication of skills involved. It should be made clear that both parties involved in any transaction are fully responsible for any verification desired/needed. A good concise disclaimer should take care of this issue. Richard N¬±ùÞµéX¬²'²Þu¼)ä礧`zÛ i÷Þw²«¶ÇîËn}øm¶ÿ¶§ÊþÇËy§Ýz÷¥¨¥x%ËKy§Ýz÷¥+-²Ê.Ç¢¸ ëa¶Úlÿùb²Û,¢êÜyú+éÞ·ùb²Û?+-wèþW}ׯz
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Friday 12 July 2002 12:31, Mike Noyes wrote: On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 15:45, guitarlynn wrote: Lynn, Thanks for the feedback. :-) I was hoping these proposals would generate more discussion than they have. I'd really appreciate additional feedback from our project members. I don't want to start affiliating with companies or create a consultants list, if it's going to upset our project members. Agreed, and my opinion certainly doesn't necessarily reflect anyone else's opinion. If they're gleaning LEAF GPL'ed code and charging for it, it would seem fair (fill in the blank). :-( Would you elaborate on this? How does it apply to the corporate affiliation idea above? Personally, I would be against something similar to a company taking a LEAF CD/IDE release, putting a closed-source web-configuration application on it, and selling it unless a large amount of the core distribution was also re-written. I am against adding one or two packages to a stock GPL'ed release and selling it as opposed to simply selling the package that they are offering. The current development of anti-virus/email-scanning for commercial use is an example of something that is fine with me they are selling their own code/package. IPNuts is quite fairly an entity of it's own right and the core is a highly modified LRP 2.9.8, which allows them the right to use it commercially (IMHO). My original concerns where over their use of LEAF VPN packages (IPSec, PPTP, CIPE, etc...) only on their for-sale releases and promoting these packages with web-configuration as the reason to buy it. If I interpreted the response correctly, they are not using LEAF VPN packages, but rather some other closed-source VPN program instead. My other concern(s), is their use of incorperating Bering and Dachstein IDE, CD-ROM, and wireless code into the sale-only products w/o making a similar product available for free (only the floppy is free and not in development anymore as I understand it). Any concerns over the use of Dachstein and Bering code in this way should be expressed by the respective authors. In closing, if your planning to sell code, then write it and sell what is yours (or largely yours) to sell. If your not planning to write much code, but need to make money, do it with consulting and the labor that you personally put in. I've sold a bit of consulting and LEAF installs, but never once have I thought of charging for the software. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Gadgets, caffeine, t-shirts, fun stuff. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Wednesday 10 July 2002 00:27, kitakura wrote: Don't worry. I am following GPL . Thank-you :-) I'm looking forward to seeing IPNuts succeed, and I appreciate your time and effort with my concerns. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Two, two, TWO treats in one. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
But when webadmin is upgraded, a license may change. I'm sorry to hear this, but those that write the code usually get to choose the license. Don't worry. It is a far future. # I'm developing kernel 2.4. It is going to use the linuxrc code of Bering. Great. Is there an announcement list I can use to keep up to date with the developments of IPnuts? Also, should I change the name on our affiliates page to IPnuts? If so, will you have a new topic icon for IPnuts available in the near future? I'm glad to change Mosquito to IPnuts. But floppy version is IPnuts 3.4 Mosquito, so you don't need to change icon and link. IPnuts Mosquito include only free package,and kernel supports only floppy device, not ide. And If possibble,I will want to maintain free version. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Stuff, things, and much much more. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
First of all, I would like to thank-you, kitakura, for updating us on your project and clarifying any assumptions that I made based on what little information I interpreted from various websites. TY :-) I offer my apologies for any false information/assumptions that I may have made! On Monday 08 July 2002 19:26, kitakura wrote: Packages in http://www.s-me.co.jp/mosquito/mos3_4/packages/ are GPL lisence.(and Other open source license decided by Auther.) WebAdmin is GPL. ( only japanese. a part is english) but, since we assert license, the user interface code of WebAdmin for [, such as VPN, ] a specific package is unacquirable in online. WebAdmin has the menu form which can be added. # And If not related to me, WebAdmin is used also for # firewall distribution of Japan in time. So, the only closed-source code is some form of VPN application that your distribution is using that is not easy to work around either! Good job! config.lrp is also my code. it is GPL.This can gather configuration file written .conf. I think that it is useful. Webadmin.lrp,config.lrp,rc.lrp ,etc.lrp and root.lrp can not use other leaf distribution ,since they are imcompatible. But other packages may be compatible with little modify,I think. A part of them includes code for Webadmin and rc.( but they are gpl.) Great! But when webadmin is upgraded, a license may change. I'm sad to hear that, but this is difficult to avoid when something goes commercially owned. # I'm developing kernel 2.4. It is going to use the linuxrc code of Bering. # I am thankful to many developers. This is where I was really concerned. Are you using Bering and/or Dachstein IDE code for sale-only products that do not have open code equivilents (ie... floppy-only free offerings) or planning to use Bering linuxrc code in something closed-source? I personally have reservations about these possibilities, when it is not 100% personal code in the particular application (not to reflect on any other developer with this opinion). I guess what I am getting at is this: How would you feel if I modified Webadmin.lrp and release it as a closed-source commercial offering? I not saying that this is what is being done... but rather looking at what _could_ happen at some point in the future. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Stuff, things, and much much more. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
# I'm developing kernel 2.4. It is going to use the linuxrc code of Bering. # I am thankful to many developers. This is where I was really concerned. Are you using Bering and/or Dachstein IDE code for "sale-only" products that do not have open code equivilents (ie... floppy-only free offerings) or planning to use Bering linuxrc code in something closed-source? I personally have reservations about these possibilities, when it is not 100% personal code in the particular application (not to reflect on any other developer with this opinion). I guess what I am getting at is this: How would you feel if I modified Webadmin.lrp and release it as a closed-source commercial offering? I not saying that this is what is being done... but rather looking at what _could_ happen at some point in the future. Don't worry. I am following GPL . --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Two, two, TWO treats in one. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 06:55, Mike Noyes wrote: rc.firewall This site is unavailable, and there hasn't been a new release in a while. Does anyone know what the rcf development status is? Everyone, Steven just informed me this site is up and running again. I'm reviewing the rcf-devel list archive for development status. -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Oh, it's good to be a geek. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Monday 08 July 2002 08:55, Mike Noyes wrote: Mosquito From what I was able to glean from babelfish, it looks like Mosquito was purchased by a VPN company (SeSame), renamed to IPnuts, and was taken commercial. Does anyone have information on Mosquito development status? http://babelfish.altavista.com/urltrurl?lp=ja_enurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .s-me.co.jp%2Fnews%2F020516.html It appears that they now a cd-release for sale and have/working-on a 2.4.x kernel with VPN, SSL, and *SQL capabilities. I'd like to know what is going on since they are now commercially owned and we haven't heard from anyone since the buyout. Corporate Affiliates proposal: I'd like us to start affiliating with corporations. However, I'm unsure of the point where we should consider a company for affiliation. Do they need to provide code resources and a link back to us for consideration, or just a link back to us? Examples: * Echogent: fwlog.pl cgi-script, Echowall, ftp white paper, Scott Best is a project member. * SeSame: Mosquito image, various packages, Webadmin, and reciprocal link. * Bits Over Atoms: Reciprocal link to us. If they're gleaning LEAF GPL'ed code and charging for it, it would seem fair (fill in the blank). :-( Paying for Consulting and site setup is fine with me (I do a little of this), but sale of the software (and in particular closing of code) is quite another, IMHO. Consultant List proposal: I'd like us to create a web page with links or contact information of consultants willing to contract for LEAF installations. Should we use the linuxports.com site for listings, or something else? This sounds good to me. I really don't know how consultants could be qualified by the project though. It could be rather easy to get over your head in a short-term project. These proposals may not be good ideas, but I thought they should be discussed. Discussion is a good idea! :-) -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Oh, it's good to be a geek. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Monday 08 July 2002 08:55, Mike Noyes wrote: Mosquito From what I was able to glean from babelfish, it looks like Mosquito was purchased by a VPN company (SeSame), renamed to IPnuts, and was taken commercial. Does anyone have information on Mosquito development status? http://babelfish.altavista.com/urltrurl?lp=ja_enurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww .s-me.co.jp%2Fnews%2F020516.html It appears that they now a cd-release for sale and have/working-on a 2.4.x kernel with VPN, SSL, and *SQL capabilities. I'd like to know what is going on since they are now commercially owned and we haven't heard from anyone since the buyout. Mosquito changed the name to IPnuts 3.4. 2.2.20 kernel VPN SSL support. not SQL. but VPN was not ditributed online. Corporate Affiliates proposal: I'd like us to start affiliating with corporations. However, I'm unsure of the point where we should consider a company for affiliation. Do they need to provide code resources and a link back to us for consideration, or just a link back to us? Examples: * Echogent: fwlog.pl cgi-script, Echowall, ftp white paper, Scott Best is a project member. * SeSame: Mosquito image, various packages, Webadmin, and reciprocal link. * Bits Over Atoms: Reciprocal link to us. If they're gleaning LEAF GPL'ed code and charging for it, it would seem fair (fill in the blank). :-( Packages in http://www.s-me.co.jp/mosquito/mos3_4/packages/ are GPL lisence.(and Other open source license decided by Auther.) WebAdmin is GPL. ( only japanese. a part is english) but, since we assert license, the user interface code of WebAdmin for [, such as VPN, ] a specific package is unacquirable in online. WebAdmin has the menu form which can be added. # And If not related to me, WebAdmin is used also for # firewall distribution of Japan in time. config.lrp is also my code. it is GPL.This can gather configuration file written .conf. I think that it is useful. Webadmin.lrp,config.lrp,rc.lrp ,etc.lrp and root.lrp can not use other leaf distribution ,since they are imcompatible. But other packages may be compatible with little modify,I think. A part of them includes code for Webadmin and rc.( but they are gpl.) But when webadmin is upgraded, a license may change. # I'm developing kernel 2.4. It is going to use the linuxrc code of Bering. # I am thankful to many developers. Paying for Consulting and site setup is fine with me (I do a little of this), but sale of the software (and in particular closing of code) is quite another, IMHO. Consultant List proposal: I'd like us to create a web page with links or contact information of consultants willing to contract for LEAF installations. Should we use the linuxports.com site for listings, or something else? This sounds good to me. I really don't know how consultants could be qualified by the project though. It could be rather easy to get over your head in a short-term project. These proposals may not be good ideas, but I thought they should be discussed. Discussion is a good idea! :-) -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Oh, it's good to be a geek. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Oh, it's good to be a geek. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: [Leaf-devel] Affiliates
On Mon, 2002-07-08 at 17:26, kitakura wrote: On Monday 08 July 2002 08:55, Mike Noyes wrote: Mosquito From what I was able to glean from babelfish Kitakura, It is nice to hear from you again. :-) Mosquito changed the name to IPnuts 3.4. Then it was just a name change not a buyout by another company. But when webadmin is upgraded, a license may change. I'm sorry to hear this, but those that write the code usually get to choose the license. # I'm developing kernel 2.4. It is going to use the linuxrc code of Bering. Great. Is there an announcement list I can use to keep up to date with the developments of IPnuts? Also, should I change the name on our affiliates page to IPnuts? If so, will you have a new topic icon for IPnuts available in the near future? # I am thankful to many developers. Thank you for taking the time to update us on IPnuts (a.k.a. Mosquito). -- Mike Noyes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ http://leaf-project.org/ --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Oh, it's good to be a geek. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
