hi,
i talked to timo about re-licensing the sasl part of dovecot under a
more liberal license (bsd/lgpl e.g.). it would allow the integration of
it in bsd base systems. another reason i would be interested is adding
sasl support to svnserve [1].
so here is my question:
what is your oppinion about this issue?
any objections from contributors?
darix
[1] http://subversion.tigris.org/
--
irssi - the client of the smart and beautiful people
http://www.irssi.de/
On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:10 +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:> i talked to timo about re-licensing the sasl part of dovecot under a > more liberal license (bsd/lgpl e.g.). it would allow the integration of > it in bsd base systems. another reason i would be interested is adding > sasl support to svnserve [1].You were last talking about having it in BSD license. I'm not really against that, but it is already LGPL if that's enough. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20050408/dce3fa3f/attachment-0001.bin>
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:46:01AM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:> On Wed, 2005-04-06 at 19:10 +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote: > > i talked to timo about re-licensing the sasl part of dovecot under a > > more liberal license (bsd/lgpl e.g.). it would allow the integration of > > it in bsd base systems. another reason i would be interested is adding > > sasl support to svnserve [1]. > > You were last talking about having it in BSD license. I'm not really > against that, but it is already LGPL if that's enough.I'm investigating the inclusion of SASL in DragonFly. I'm also quite sure that OpenBSD would be interested in a free and cleanly written SASL library. The former is true for Cyrus, the latter definitely not. Joerg