On Jun 24, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Tom Collins wrote:
On Jun 24, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Rick Widmer wrote:
Selling a commercial product that includes vpopmail code is
exactly what the GPL license is designed to prevent. Why should
you get to sell our labor without paying us?
What if QmailAdmin had
Tom Collins wrote:
On Jun 24, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Rick Widmer wrote:
Selling a commercial product that includes vpopmail code is exactly
what the GPL license is designed to prevent. Why should you get to
sell our labor without paying us?
What if QmailAdmin had been written as a proprietary,
On Jun 25, 2007, at 1:58 AM, Rick Widmer wrote:
I think it would because QmailAdmin includes vpopmail code at the
linker level which requires it to be under the GPL license too.
Late linking with .so files is acceptable, because the product does
not include GPL code, and only links to an
Hi,
I am a small software engineer who is currently doing contract work
for a company, and I have a question about what license the vpopmail
library is under (vpopmail.a and friends). I am developing commercial
software for them that would link against the library, and now I have
read
Bert JW Regeer wrote:
Hi,
I am a small software engineer who is currently doing contract work for
a company, and I have a question about what license the vpopmail library
is under (vpopmail.a and friends).
I believe almost every file within the project indicates that it is
licensed
On Jun 24, 2007, at 2:35 PM, Rick Widmer wrote:
Selling a commercial product that includes vpopmail code is exactly
what the GPL license is designed to prevent. Why should you get to
sell our labor without paying us?
What if QmailAdmin had been written as a proprietary, commercial
app?
