GPL v3

[Glenn Steen]

On 27/09/2007, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote:
> on 9/27/2007 11:47 AM Scott Silva spake the following:
> > on 9/27/2007 8:44 AM Martin.Hepworth spake the following:
> >> BSD -
> >>
> >> http://www.itwire.com/content/view/14361/1091/
> >>
> >> To quote from the licence template itself: "Redistribution and use in
> >> source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted
> >> provided that the following conditions are met:
> >>
> >> "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> >> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> >> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> >> "Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
> >> contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
> >> this software without specific prior written permission."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The third condition here would help with the 3 companies I've heard of
> >> that are taking the MailScanner code and perhaps not feeding anything
> >> back (code or money).
> >>
> > What are the three companies doing this?
> > Just curious... Inquiring minds want to know  .
> > I always wodered if Opencomputing was doing that (Openprotect).
> But they do contribute the sa-update channel for the sare rules.
> Replying to myself ... I must have postfix running somewhere.  ;-P
Wellcome to the family:-D;-)

My view on all this license stuff is ... why change? Newer
license/higher version number doesn't necessarily mean "better". What
goal do you aim at Jules?

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se