> Humm.. I'll read it again but thats not what I got out of it. It > seemed to say that licenses will be available for the > endusers and that we must inform them.
Yes. And that license is supposed to be royalty free. Thus, I have no idea how that leads to Apache being a development subsidiary of RSA. RSA gets one thing out of it, aside from a lot of wasted paperwork...more people using SAML. So, the issue for me is solely what they decide to do in the future. > That is a problem as well, however my problem is that it requires > endusers to acquire an additional license. Ok. As long as it's clear that it's not a royalty-based license, that's all I'm attempting to clarify. -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
