I stand corrected. Although the "As far as I know" bit is up for
debate:-)
On 12 Apr 2001 02:10:27 +0500, Dan Winship wrote:
> > Ya right. Our friendly BSD license is the reason Microsoft was able to
> > make proprietary changes to kerberos and not release it to the rest of
> > us.
>
> No. Mic
> Ya right. Our friendly BSD license is the reason Microsoft was able to
> make proprietary changes to kerberos and not release it to the rest of
> us.
No. Microsoft "embraced and extended" the Kerberos *protocol* (as
specified in RFC 15whatever). As far as I know, they didn't use a single
line
Here here. I do agree with this point as well. Man this licensing stuff
gets confusing.
--
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10 Apr 2001, George Farris wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2001 12:28:52 -0400, Mark Tolman wrote:
> > Just a thought,
On 10 Apr 2001 12:28:52 -0400, Mark Tolman wrote:
> Just a thought, but it is well known that the GPL is not business
> friendly. This is just one example of that. Perhaps you should think
> about using another license that is open source friendly and will allow
> you to link to the needed LDAP
Just a thought, but it is well known that the GPL is not business
friendly. This is just one example of that. Perhaps you should think
about using another license that is open source friendly and will allow
you to link to the needed LDAP libs. Maybe the BSD license? I'm not a
legal expert, but
