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
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
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
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would want to move their work to a newer version of the LGPL license,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
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
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
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
