Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
Philip, This is observed in Evolution also. The OpenChange hackers brought to our notice and I'm with the Novell legal team to get this resolved altogether. But that process seems like taking time and I have to wait a but before doing anything. -Srini. On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 12:08 +0200, Philip

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the or later clause. Jeff On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 16:19 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: Philip, This is observed in Evolution also. The OpenChange hackers brought to our notice and I'm with the Novell legal team to get this

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Philip Van Hoof
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the or later clause. For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange and Tinymail if the work would either be dual licensed as LGPL v2 and LGPL v3

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
(been having problems with the novell smtp server sending mail, so apologies if this goes out twice). On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the or

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Zan Lynx
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 11:34 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: [cut] The problem would be that otherwise if the authors of these libraries would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license, Camel's license might turn

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 13:33 -0300, standel wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the or later clause. For what it's worth, it

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Jeffrey Stedfast
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 13:33 -0300, standel wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the or later clause. For what it's worth, it

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's indiv idual source files

2007-10-09 Thread standel
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 17:22 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote: On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 10:48 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: It was supposed to be GPLv2 or LGPLv2 (forget which), but without the or later clause. For what it's worth, it would be more easy for projects like OpenChange and

Re: [Evolution-hackers] Copyright of Camel's individual source files

2007-10-09 Thread Srinivasa Ragavan
The context I started the activity was on Evolution (mixed licenses of V2-only and V2-or-later) where OpenChange wasn't able to write plugins using SAMBA (V3) and OpenChange libmapi (V3) due to license mismatch. I saw that EDS also has these mixed licensing and Philip also pointed it out and I