On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 12:02:54PM -0700, Steve Thomas wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Shayne Lebrun is rumored to have said:
> >
> > and watching the fur fly. Linksys is the current target; supposedly they
> > have Linux cores in some of their products. But, guess what, it mi
IL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: SA in Mailshield by Lyris / (was) Re: [SAtalk] OT: SCO may have
violated GNU
- Original Message -
From: "Greg A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:59 PM
Sub
- Original Message -
From: "Greg A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:59 PM
Subject: SA in Mailshield by Lyris / (was) Re: [SAtalk] OT: SCO may have violated GNU
> The way I read the license was that you can not sell
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 02:26:10PM -0400, Shayne Lebrun is rumored to have said:
>
> and watching the fur fly. Linksys is the current target; supposedly they
> have Linux cores in some of their products. But, guess what, it might be
I thought that this has been common knowledge for years. I'd h
> To: Greg A
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SAtalk] OT: SCO may have violated GNU
>
>
> Greg A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > How about this one?
> >
> > http://www.mailshield.com/products/mailshield/server/whats_new.html
> >
> > Ma
Greg A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about this one?
>
> http://www.mailshield.com/products/mailshield/server/whats_new.html
>
> Mailshield now incorporates SpamAssassin and charges heaps of money
> for their product.
>
> Anyone know if that is legal?
Charging heaps of money is allowed.
And was it trademarked for the current version that we run, or something
that deersoft was working on?
Who was first?
-Mark
Peter Campion-Bye wrote:
The way some on the list have responded would suppose that anyone can copy
SpamAssassin, modify it or integrate it, change the name of it and the
At 05:51 PM 6/12/2003 +0100, Peter Campion-Bye wrote:
> http://www.mailshield.com/products/mailshield/server/whats_new.html
At the bottom of the page in the above link is the line:
Note: SpamAssassin is a trademark of Deersoft, Inc
Putting www.deersoft.com into a browser takes you to the McAfee
>
> The way some on the list have responded would suppose that anyone can copy
> SpamAssassin, modify it or integrate it, change the name of it and then
> resell it for thousands. (ie, Mailshield). This does not make sense to me.
> (Here is the link again.)
>
> http://www.mailshield.com/products/ma
On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 08:59:36AM -0700, Greg A wrote:
> The way I read the license was that you can not sell SA software.
> You can only charge for duplication fees, installation or
> maintenance but not for the software or customized versions derived
> from it. I could be wrong, I am not a law
The way I read the license was that you can not sell SA software. You can only charge for duplication fees, installation or maintenance but not for the software or customized versions derived from it. I could be wrong, I am not a lawyer...
The way some on the list have responded would suppose th
> "JS" == Justin Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
JS> I don't have any information about this either, only a thought. If I
JS> contributed code to an open source project like SA, I'm contributing it
JS> under the conditions of whatever licensing scheme(s) the project already
JS> utilizes. B
At 05:08 PM 6/11/2003 -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
I don't have any information about this either, only a thought. If I
contributed code to an open source project like SA, I'm contributing it
under the conditions of whatever licensing scheme(s) the project already
utilizes.
Yes, this is the case fo
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 05:08:21PM -0500, Justin Shore wrote:
> I don't have any information about this either, only a thought. If I
> contributed code to an open source project like SA, I'm contributing it
> under the conditions of whatever licensing scheme(s) the project already
> utilizes. Bec
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Duncan Findlay wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:27:35PM -0400, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
> > Hai; note also that for all the random people on the street know, said
> > company went directly to the SA copyright holder, and got a license all
> > their own, separate from the GPL/AL
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:27:35PM -0400, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
> Hai; note also that for all the random people on the street know, said
> company went directly to the SA copyright holder, and got a license all
> their own, separate from the GPL/AL/NPL/BSD License/Whatever.
No single entity owns th
D] Behalf Of Matt
> Kettler
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [SAtalk] OT: SCO may have violated GNU
>
>
> At 01:23 PM 6/11/2003 -0400, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
> >Of course it's legal.
> >
> >If they've ma
At 01:23 PM 6/11/2003 -0400, Shayne Lebrun wrote:
Of course it's legal.
If they've made any changes to SA, they're obligated to release them to
anybody who buys the product (NOT necessarily to have them publically
available on a web/FTP site; that's just usually the route people take.)
If they'
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:19 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [SAtalk] OT:
SCO may have violated GNU
How about this one?
http://www.mailshield.com/products/mailshield/server/whats_new.html
Mailshield now incorporates SpamAssassin and charges heaps of money for
the
How about this one?
http://www.mailshield.com/products/mailshield/server/whats_new.html
Mailshield now incorporates SpamAssassin and charges heaps of money for their product.
Anyone know if that is legal?
"Bingham, Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Open-source strikes back:http://www.ewe
Open-source strikes back:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123172,00.asp
Let's hope there's some merit to this.
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Kristian Koehntopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [SAtalk] LDAP Storage
21 matches
Mail list logo
