On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Neal Richter wrote:
> I noticed that.. but what I did also notice is that I didn't see
> that the mifluz code officially had copyright assigned to the
He can't assign copyright to the FSF since it involves some code which is
not his, least of all the Berkeley DB code which it uses. But it also
includes a fair amount of "ht://Dig code" from the htlib/ directory.
My understanding is that RMS didn't care much--it fills a need and it's
mostly under the GPL.
> My main motivation is a library style release of htdig could have
> a LGPL and not compromize the spirit of the project.
Sure. We'll see what happens. I'd be interested in any legal opinion about
the "ht://Dig Group" issue since there's currently no obvious "owner" of
all of the ht://Dig code.
Williams Students Online
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.