Re: Bacula and OpenSSL (original) (raw)
- To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
- From: Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:02:49 -0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 139emupb7uaim7d@corp.supernews.com>
- References: <[🔎] 200707121641.53917.kern@sibbald.com> <[🔎] 200707122018.07072.kern@sibbald.com> <[🔎] 1184273968.31105.13.camel@tomoyo> <[🔎] 200707122346.39631.kern@sibbald.com>
Kern Sibbald kern@sibbald.com wrote:
I would like a tit-for-a-tat clause so that those who modify it and distribute it are obligated to publish their modifications. The MIT license does not provide that.
On the other hand, the MIT license permits even use by the objectionable persons who contribute to this thread.
regards.
-- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Reply to:
- References:
- Bacula and OpenSSL
* From: Kern Sibbald kern@sibbald.com - Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
* From: Kern Sibbald kern@sibbald.com - Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
* From: Josselin Mouette joss@debian.org - Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
* From: Kern Sibbald kern@sibbald.com
- Bacula and OpenSSL
- Prev by Date:Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
- Next by Date:Re: LGPL v3 compatibilty
- Previous by thread:Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
- Next by thread:Re: Bacula and OpenSSL
- Index(es):