Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 09:50:30 -0800 From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.Org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Greg Quinlan <greg@swlct.sthames.nhs.uk>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Slapd (LDAP) Problems Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19991117095030.00a705a0@localhost> In-Reply-To: <3832D800.14E0B090@newsguy.com> References: <000001bf301f$c1c955a0$021d85d1@youwant.to> <00af01bf3025$955a27a0$5214010a@swlct.sthames.nhs.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:29 AM 11/18/99 +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: >Greg Quinlan wrote: >> >> The only difference I can see is that the development of openldap, is as its >> name suggests, "open." That any modifications to the "core standard product" >> be publicly shared, and properly documented. My original thoughts as to using the word "open" in OpenLDAP was to refer our "open" development process and our "open" use policies. >> Selling Openldap as a separate product is also NOT allowed. This is actually not true. We (the OpenLDAP Foundation) do allow such. In where this is not allowed by the OPL to which your copy was provided, we offer (without fee) alternative licensing. In particular, we authorize use of OpenLDAP 1.x under the terms of OPL 2.0 (used for development and future major releases). OPL 2.0 is quite unrestrictive. >> Selling support, Selling it as part of another >> product, Selling installation of it.....etc is permitted. yes, yes, yes, yes. >>Essentially your not allowed to steal-it call it your own!!! OPL 2.0 can be summarized as "don't delete the notice, don't sue us, don't pretend you are us". >> This is surely a good thing? > >We, people who prefer BSD over GPL, think it is not. See OPL 2.0. http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~//LICENSE?rev=1.11 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.5.32.19991117095030.00a705a0>