webadmin-list — Webmin users mailing list

Re: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Vern <ve...@cw...>]

> You can't have two owners. =A0

I thought not.

> You can, however, create a group containing=20
> those two users (it can be a secondary group, and probably should be,=20
> since many systems have a specific primary group for normal users, or=20
> they auto-generate a primary group named after the user), and then set=20
> the group ownership to that group. =A0Just make sure group can read/wri=
te=20
> your file, and all will be well. =A0

Well I created a super user at it where called Vernon and made it's secon=
dary group as=20
root. But still cannot write to the folder unless the folder has Vernon s=
et as user.=20
So how do I make it so that a group has write access?

Re: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 19:45 -0400, Vern wrote:
> This may sound like a crazy question but it's never been an issue for me until now.
> 
> I was wondering if there is a way to have two owner's of a folder. If I go under the 
> file manager and I select the folder and try to add two user names under the owenrship 
> bu it will not let me. Is there any other way or is this not possible?
----
Unix uses groups for this purpose. Only one owner, one group and then
there's everyone else.

Given your premise, this is not possible.

Under normal circumstances, create a group with the 2 members and change
the group ownership of the folder to that group.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Joe C. <jo...@sw...>]

Nathan Kurz wrote:

>  Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the
>  developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
> 
>     Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for
>     others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer
>     itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does,
>     this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
> 
>     However, if the developer does something that would violate the
>     GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral
>     standing in the community. 
> 
> This agrees with my interpretation and with Joe's (ownership caveats
> aside), but unless I'm misinterpreting you I think it contradicts what
> you are saying.  Am I somehow misinterpreting what you are saying?

Thanks for digging this up Nate.  Exactly what we all needed to see 
(even Barry, perhaps, will believe it coming straight from the horses 
mouth).

So, I'm losing moral standing in the community.  I reckon my moral 
standing can take a down-tick without it hurting my self esteem too 
much.  But, if anyone disparages Jamie's moral standing in any 
community, I'll fight 'em.  Fisticuffs, mano y mano, the ol' sweet 
science, anytime, anyplace.  Jamie is beyond reproach.  I aint kiddin'. 
  Y'all know I'm from Texas, right?  ;-)

Regards,
Joe

Re: [webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Joe C. <jo...@sw...>]

Vern wrote:
> This may sound like a crazy question but it's never been an issue for me until now.
> 
> I was wondering if there is a way to have two owner's of a folder. If I go under the 
> file manager and I select the folder and try to add two user names under the owenrship 
> bu it will not let me. Is there any other way or is this not possible?

You can't have two owners.  You can, however, create a group containing 
those two users (it can be a secondary group, and probably should be, 
since many systems have a specific primary group for normal users, or 
they auto-generate a primary group named after the user), and then set 
the group ownership to that group.  Just make sure group can read/write 
your file, and all will be well.  If the folder is within a parent 
folder that is not readable by either user or the group, then there will 
still be permissions problems.  I usually solve this by creating a 
"/home/shared" folder that all of my users have access to, and then, if 
you need further granularity you can create subfolders for each new 
group which can only be accessed by that group.

[webmin-l] File; Folder Ownership

[Vern <ve...@cw...>]

This may sound like a crazy question but it's never been an issue for me until now.

I was wondering if there is a way to have two owner's of a folder. If I go under the 
file manager and I select the folder and try to add two user names under the owenrship 
bu it will not let me. Is there any other way or is this not possible?

Thanks

RE: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Thomas E D. <ed...@al...>]

Hello all!,

This thread is getting old.

We have all enjoyed virtualmin _FREE_ for a long time!!  If Joe wants to
make a dollar for his hard work, _GREAT_!! He deserves it!

I have been very greatful for what he has done.  I probably will never
purchase the "Professional" version.  Many may and that's your prerogative
just as it is mine not to.  I don't have the need.  I just have a few
virtual domains that I own and operate.  Joe has promised all the features
of the "Professional" version in the _FREE_ Virtualmin but delayed, so
what's the beef?

My system operates on CentOS a derivative of RedHat Enterprise Linux.  I am
greatful RedHat makes their source rpms publicly avaliable as I cannot
afford to pay for the support of their GPL'd product.

Without people such as Joe and RedHat, we'd all be bowing to Bill!!!!

'nuff said!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: web...@li... 
> [mailto:web...@li...] On Behalf 
> Of Joe Cooper
> Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 7:05 PM
> To: web...@li...
> Subject: Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license
> 
> Hi Barry and all,
> 
> I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this 
> thing to bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our 
> legal ranting.
> 
> Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright 
> holders, cannot make a commercial variant of something that 
> we have previously released under the GPL and that 
> dual-licensing with the GPL and a GPL-incompatible license is 
> not legally supportable.  You've stated this in dozens of 
> different ways, but it all comes down to whether we have a 
> legal right to do so.  As I mentioned before, this is a very 
> common misconception about the GPL.  So, let's dispel this 
> myth first with a simple question:
> 
> Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the 
> letter of the license under which they have released their code?
> 
> A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in 
> order for any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you 
> believe you're helping us avoid with this discussion.
> 
> So, who will bring this lawsuit?  You?  The FSF?  Virtualmin, Inc.?
> 
> Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, 
> and I'll give you three guesses as to which one it is.  The 
> first two guesses don't count.
> 
> It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the 
> obvious answer, that there can be no such thing as a license 
> that applies to the copyright holder (a license has to be 
> enforceable under the law, and thus there has to be someone 
> with greater rights than the license grants).  So, there goes 
> the argument that we have to license every line of code we 
> write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is 
> part of Virtualmin or not).  We simply don't, and no amount 
> of arguing that we do is going to change the legal facts.  
> I'm just not going to argue that point any further.  If you 
> still don't believe me, I'm sorry, there's nothing more I'm 
> willing to say on the matter.  Take it up with the FSF or an 
> attorney, if you like.  If you believe that we have the legal 
> copyright necessary to license it to others under the GPL 
> *despite starting out with a different license*, then you 
> must believe we also have the legal rights necessary to 
> license it under other terms.
> 
> On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the 
> discussion and worth covering:
> 
> 
> If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would 
> rather we not include, say the word and show me the code.  
> Let's not be 
> wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even 
> I"...Either you did 
> or you didn't.  I don't believe anyone has been misled into 
> contributing 
> code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had been a non-GPL 
> version in the past and there would be a non-GPL version in 
> the future. 
>   But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, 
> point it 
> out.  There's no time like the present.  I suspect you greatly 
> over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of 
> Virtualmin.
> 
> 
> OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin 
> Professional.  Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two 
> shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me.  OpenCountry are a nice bunch of 
> folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for 
> their involvement.  There is no need to pester them about 
> licensing of 
> Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about.
> 
> 
> Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright 
> holder is 
> never subject to the license under which they distribute 
> their own code, 
> even if that license is the GPL.  I'm out of ways to explain 
> this, and 
> until you come to understand this fact, we simply aren't 
> going to end up 
> talking about the same problem.
> 
> If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you 
> like.  The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, but they 
> might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core developer on 
> another large Open Source project that approached the FSF 
> about turning 
> the project into a GNU project, and now I know their approach 
> and when 
> they have an interest in a project, and I can assure you they 
> don't care 
> one whit about Virtualmin).
> 
> If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this 
> isn't really relevant to Webmin.  I just posted the 
> announcement here as 
> I know there are quite a few folks here who in the past had shown an 
> interest in the ransom or GPL version of Virtualmin.  Just 
> thought I'd 
> fill them in on what we've been working on, and I really 
> didn't intend 
> to start a firestorm about licensing.
> 
> Regards,
> Joe
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is sponsored by:
> Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App 
> Server. Download
> it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
> Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
> -
> Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at 
> web...@li...
> To remove yourself from this list, go to
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list
> 

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Nathan K. <na...@ve...>]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:24:23PM -0700, Barry wrote:
> Nathan Kurz wrote:
> >>>The GPL is a license.  A license dictates what folks who do not hold 
> >>>the copyright can do with code.  It does not have any bearing on what 
> >>>the holder of the copyright can do with the code.  
> >>>     
> >>>
> Incorrect conclusion , and answered in plain English on the FAQ on the 
> fsf.org site.
> 
> >>That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and 
> >>can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every 
> >>copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never 
> >>make it so,
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, Barry.  
> >
> 
> Read the info at fsf.org. I am correct.

If the FAQ you refer to is the one at
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.htm>, I see this:

 I heard that someone got a copy of a GPL'ed program under another
 license. Is this possible?

    The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other
    licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program
    can release it under several different licenses in parallel. One
    of them may be the GNU GPL.

    The license that comes in your copy, assuming it was put in by the
    copyright holder and that you got the copy legitimately, is the
    license that applies to your copy. 

 I would like to release a program I wrote under the GNU GPL, but I
 would like to use the same code in non-free programs.

    To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted, but
    legally there is no obstacle to your doing this. If you are the
    copyright holder for the code, you can release it under various
    different non-exclusive licenses at various times.

 Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the
 developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?

    Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for
    others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer
    itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does,
    this is not a "violation" of the GPL.

    However, if the developer does something that would violate the
    GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral
    standing in the community. 

This agrees with my interpretation and with Joe's (ownership caveats
aside), but unless I'm misinterpreting you I think it contradicts what
you are saying.  Am I somehow misinterpreting what you are saying?

--nate

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Joe C. <jo...@sw...>]

Hi Barry and all,

I'm going to try this again, and hopefully, it will put this thing to 
bed before the rest of the list gets tired of our legal ranting.

Barry, the crux of your argument is that we, the copyright holders, 
cannot make a commercial variant of something that we have previously 
released under the GPL and that dual-licensing with the GPL and a 
GPL-incompatible license is not legally supportable.  You've stated this 
in dozens of different ways, but it all comes down to whether we have a 
legal right to do so.  As I mentioned before, this is a very common 
misconception about the GPL.  So, let's dispel this myth first with a 
simple question:

Who will sue the copyright holder for not following the letter of the 
license under which they have released their code?

A copyright infringement lawsuit would have to be brought in order for 
any "legal mess" to occur, which is what you believe you're helping us 
avoid with this discussion.

So, who will bring this lawsuit?  You?  The FSF?  Virtualmin, Inc.?

Of these three options, only one has a legal leg to stand on, and I'll 
give you three guesses as to which one it is.  The first two guesses 
don't count.

It ought to be obvious from this simple question, and the obvious 
answer, that there can be no such thing as a license that applies to the 
copyright holder (a license has to be enforceable under the law, and 
thus there has to be someone with greater rights than the license 
grants).  So, there goes the argument that we have to license every line 
of code we write for the rest of our lives under the GPL (whether it is 
part of Virtualmin or not).  We simply don't, and no amount of arguing 
that we do is going to change the legal facts.  I'm just not going to 
argue that point any further.  If you still don't believe me, I'm sorry, 
there's nothing more I'm willing to say on the matter.  Take it up with 
the FSF or an attorney, if you like.  If you believe that we have the 
legal copyright necessary to license it to others under the GPL *despite 
starting out with a different license*, then you must believe we also 
have the legal rights necessary to license it under other terms.

On to the other issues you've raised that are new to the discussion and 
worth covering:


If you believe you have contributed code to Virtualmin that you would 
rather we not include, say the word and show me the code.  Let's not be 
wishy-washy, and say "it may be that others, or even I"...Either you did 
or you didn't.  I don't believe anyone has been misled into contributing 
code to Virtualmin without awareness that there had been a non-GPL 
version in the past and there would be a non-GPL version in the future. 
  But if there is a piece of code that fits that description, point it 
out.  There's no time like the present.  I suspect you greatly 
over-estimate the amount of non-Jamie-authored code in any version of 
Virtualmin.


OpenCountry has nothing to do with Virtualmin, Inc. or Virtualmin 
Professional.  Virtualmin, Inc. is a Texas Corporation with two 
shareholders: Jamie Cameron and me.  OpenCountry are a nice bunch of 
folks who have sponsored Webmin development, and I applaud them for 
their involvement.  There is no need to pester them about licensing of 
Virtualmin...they'll have no clue what you're talking about.


Anyway, the long and short of this issue is that a copyright holder is 
never subject to the license under which they distribute their own code, 
even if that license is the GPL.  I'm out of ways to explain this, and 
until you come to understand this fact, we simply aren't going to end up 
talking about the same problem.

If you don't want to take my word for it, take it up with anyone you 
like.  The FSF won't be particularly happy to hear from you, but they 
might be willing to answer your questions (I am a core developer on 
another large Open Source project that approached the FSF about turning 
the project into a GNU project, and now I know their approach and when 
they have an interest in a project, and I can assure you they don't care 
one whit about Virtualmin).

If you'd like to keep discussing it, let's make it private, as this 
isn't really relevant to Webmin.  I just posted the announcement here as 
I know there are quite a few folks here who in the past had shown an 
interest in the ransom or GPL version of Virtualmin.  Just thought I'd 
fill them in on what we've been working on, and I really didn't intend 
to start a firestorm about licensing.

Regards,
Joe

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Barry <we...@i1...>]

Nathan Kurz wrote:

>On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Barry wrote:
>  
>
>>Joe Cooper wrote:
>>    
>>
>
>Hi Barry and Joe ---
>
>First, a disclaimer.  I am not a lawyer.  I am not even an expert.
>But I do feel like I do have a pretty good grasp on copyright law and
>the GPL, at least as interpreted in the United States.
>
>IMHO, both of you are right on certain points:
>
>1) If you own a piece of code, you can relicense it however you want.
>   The GPL is a license to users, and as such grants rights where
>   there once were none.  It does not reduce the owner's rights that
>   already exist.  The 'code' in the abstract is not subject to
>   copyright or the GPL, instead the particular released version is.
>   If the owner wants to make a new version and release it under a
>   different license, this is fine and good.  It does not affect the
>   instantiations already released under the GPL.
>  
>
I was with you until the last sentence. The GPL absolutely *does* impose 
limitation on the copyright owner. In particular, all *derivative* works 
*must* be GPL'd. This is the essence of GPL. There is no escaping it, 
Except by:

-  not GPL'ing code in the first place, and alternative "open" licenses 
exist to address this issue. all this is explained in plain English on 
the fsf.org site and has been almost forever.
- dual licensing with a license compatible with GPL (also discussed in 
plain English on the fsf.org site)

Jamie and Joe freely chose the GPL for Virtual min 2+  years ago. As a 
result, all future versions, unless they are written form scratch, are 
derivative works and hence GPL. They don't have to like it, but it is 
the truth.

As far as I know, no code that was once GPL'd has ever reverted to any 
other status, without the GPL attached. I would very much like to know 
of counter examples if they exist.

>2) The question of whether one owns a piece of code is really prickly.
>   If you sit in an empty room and write from scratch having never
>   seen anyone else's code, you probably are free from copyright
>   infringement and own that code (although as an aside if what you
>   write is non-trivial that code you now own almost certainly
>   violates someone's patent).  
>

Agreed.

>But if you were looking at other
>   implementations, you are at the whim of a court as to whether you
>   are infringing.  And at least in the US, if you have accepted and
>   included code written by others (even one line snippets), in the
>   absence of written transfer of copyright ownership from each of
>   those contributors, you no longer own that code in entirety.
>  
>
This is the crux of the argument in the SCO  case. It  has yet o make it 
to court, and SCO has not publicly said which code is infringing. So I 
guess it is still really an open question. In the particulars of the SCO 
case, at this point, having had plenty of time to put up or shut up, and 
having failed to take the opportunity, most people feel SCO is just 
blowing smoke.

>The lack of ownership does not necessarily mean that you are doing
>anything illegal by re-releasing the code under a different license,
>  
>

But it does leave you at risk later should th ownership be proved to not 
be as advertised. Not unlike the same reason why when you buy a house, a 
title search is undertaken and insurance on the results also taken. The 
risk of a mistake happening is low, but the potential price of that 
mistake is very high indeed.

>it just means that you may be opening yourself up to some liability.
>Was the intent to contribute the code under the GPL?  For that matter,
>did the contributor intend to grant you a license to release the code
>at all?  In the absence of written documentation, this is for a court
>to decide.  
>

\Right - that was why I mentioned there are in fact legal risks, when 
Joe suggested there were none. He could find his resources tied up in 
legal actions, even if he were to prevail, and what a waste that would 
be when it could be clarified now.

>Personally, I think that written documentation is
>overkill, and I would feel reasonably comfortable depending on the
>goodwill of the contributors.  But I am obviously not a court of law.
>  
>

Nor responsible for the releasability of a commercial project. Real 
companies, with real investors, check out these matters very carefully, 
and very routinely before a release. Providence of intellectual 
property, when the main asset of the company is that intellectual 
property, is critical. Without the documentation, no investors will come 
forward, at least not at a reasonable price.

>  
>
>>>The GPL is a license.  A license dictates what folks who do not hold 
>>>the copyright can do with code.  It does not have any bearing on what 
>>>the holder of the copyright can do with the code.  
>>>      
>>>
Incorrect conclusion , and answered in plain English on the FAQ on the 
fsf.org site.

>>That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and 
>>can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every 
>>copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never 
>>make it so,
>>    
>>
>
>I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, Barry.  
>

Read the info at fsf.org. I am correct.

>If one is using the
>GPL license to create the derivative work, then you are correct.  
>

Which is the case under discussion. Virtualmin has been GPL for 2+ years 
- I quoted the timeline form the swelltech site already. Virtualmin Pro 
(presumably) will merely be new and extended features form the existing 
version. So it is a derivative work, of GPL code. Other cases are not 
what we are talking about here.

>But
>the owner of the code (with the caveats on ownership above) is not
>creating the work under the dictates of the GPL.  
>

They already did that 2 years ago.

>As Joe states, the
>GPL dictates what rights are granted to others by the GPL, but says
>nothing about any other rights one may have to the same code.
>  
>

That is what Joe states, and I understand his desire  for it to be that 
way. But it is not what the GPL states, not what the FSF states about 
the matter, and they are the owners of the GPL itself.

>This is alluded to by last paragraph of section 7 of the GPL license,
>particularly the part after the last semicolon.
>
>  It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
>  patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
>  such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
>  integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
>  implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
>  generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
>  through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
>  system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is
>  willing to distribute software through any other system and a
>  licensee cannot impose that choice.
>  
>

Section 7 begins :   "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or 
allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited 
to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court 
order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this 
License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If 
you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations 
under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a 
consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."

In short, it says if there is a court order that forces you to do 
something contrary to GPL, then the terms of the license are such that 
you may not distribute the code at all.

In other words, it is all or nothing.

So section 7 isn;t going to help make the case that something other then 
GPL, for a derivative work, based on any court order at all, is allowed. 
It clearly states the opposite of that.


>In support of Barry, though, note also that the reference is to
>'author/donor', with the implied donation under the terms of the GPL.
>  
>

Here are some useful clause form GPL:

"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis 
or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. "

"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not 
covered by this License; they are outside its scope."

" You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source 
code as you receive it"

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and 
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

"Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest 
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to 
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or 
collective works based on the Program."

"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except 
as expressly provided under this License. "

" Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the 
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the 
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to 
these terms and conditions."

Personally, I think there is an easy way around these issues, but they 
are going to require that Jamie and Joe realize that the code for 
Virtualmin Pro *is GPL*. That the code is GPL does not prohibit them 
charging for it.

Beyond that, I will leave it as a puzzle for a while to see if they or 
anyone else find the solution - I think the exercise will be educational 
indeed, more so then if I just spit it out.

Best,

Barry

[webmin-l] Re: Suse 9.3 - cannot access webmin

[malkajef <mal...@or...>]

Dear Greg

Thanks for replying.  It turns out that there is a bug in the version I =
installed (1.220-1) and it is necessary to run "sudo -s =
/etc/webmin/start"  to get it started.  Then it works fine.

Jeff


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Greg Moeller=20
  To: mal...@or...=20
  Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 3:44 PM
  Subject: Suse 9.3 - cannot access webmin


  Jeff:

  Also, if you have access to a command line do this...

  ps -ef | grep miniserv, if this does not return any results (other =
than the 'grep' command itself, then webmin is not running.  You can try =
to start it by issuing the following from the command line:
  /etc/webmin/start

  Then repeat the ps command to see if it actually started.

  Cheers,
  -Greg Moeller

  >>> mal...@or... 9/16/2005 2:06:06 >>>

  Please excuse the very basic question, but I am a complete newbie to =
linux=20
  (using Suse 9.3) and I was advised to install webmin to configure my=20
  wireless and samba more easily.

  I downloaded webmin-1.220-1.noarch.rpm from=20
  http://www.webmin.com/download.html, installed it as su using  rpm -U=20
  webmin-1.220-1.noarch.rpm .  The install went well and searching for =
it in=20
  YaST I find it is in fact installed - but shown with the "locked icon" =

  indicating it apparently cannot be modified.

  My problem is that when I enter  http://localhost:10000/ in a browser =
I get=20
  an error message
  "The connection was refused when attempting to contact =
localhost:10000"

  At the time, the browser can successfully access the internet. Not =
really=20
  knowing my way around linux I do not know what to look for to solve =
the=20
  problem.  I've searched the web but have not come up with anything.

  Also, not important but it might be a clue, webmin does  not appear on =
the K=20
  Menus.

  Any advice would be appreciated.

  Jeff=20



  -------------------------------------------------------
  SF.Net email is sponsored by:
  Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. =
Download
  it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
  Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
  -
  Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at =
web...@li...
  To remove yourself from this list, go to
  http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Nathan K. <na...@ve...>]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 12:00:00PM -0700, Barry wrote:
> Joe Cooper wrote:

Hi Barry and Joe ---

First, a disclaimer.  I am not a lawyer.  I am not even an expert.
But I do feel like I do have a pretty good grasp on copyright law and
the GPL, at least as interpreted in the United States.

IMHO, both of you are right on certain points:

1) If you own a piece of code, you can relicense it however you want.
   The GPL is a license to users, and as such grants rights where
   there once were none.  It does not reduce the owner's rights that
   already exist.  The 'code' in the abstract is not subject to
   copyright or the GPL, instead the particular released version is.
   If the owner wants to make a new version and release it under a
   different license, this is fine and good.  It does not affect the
   instantiations already released under the GPL.

2) The question of whether one owns a piece of code is really prickly.
   If you sit in an empty room and write from scratch having never
   seen anyone else's code, you probably are free from copyright
   infringement and own that code (although as an aside if what you
   write is non-trivial that code you now own almost certainly
   violates someone's patent).  But if you were looking at other
   implementations, you are at the whim of a court as to whether you
   are infringing.  And at least in the US, if you have accepted and
   included code written by others (even one line snippets), in the
   absence of written transfer of copyright ownership from each of
   those contributors, you no longer own that code in entirety.

The lack of ownership does not necessarily mean that you are doing
anything illegal by re-releasing the code under a different license,
it just means that you may be opening yourself up to some liability.
Was the intent to contribute the code under the GPL?  For that matter,
did the contributor intend to grant you a license to release the code
at all?  In the absence of written documentation, this is for a court
to decide.  Personally, I think that written documentation is
overkill, and I would feel reasonably comfortable depending on the
goodwill of the contributors.  But I am obviously not a court of law.

> >The GPL is a license.  A license dictates what folks who do not hold 
> >the copyright can do with code.  It does not have any bearing on what 
> >the holder of the copyright can do with the code.  
> 
> That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and 
> can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every 
> copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never 
> make it so,

I'm pretty sure you are wrong about this, Barry.  If one is using the
GPL license to create the derivative work, then you are correct.  But
the owner of the code (with the caveats on ownership above) is not
creating the work under the dictates of the GPL.  As Joe states, the
GPL dictates what rights are granted to others by the GPL, but says
nothing about any other rights one may have to the same code.

This is alluded to by last paragraph of section 7 of the GPL license,
particularly the part after the last semicolon.

  It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
  patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
  such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
  integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
  implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
  generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
  through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
  system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is
  willing to distribute software through any other system and a
  licensee cannot impose that choice.

In support of Barry, though, note also that the reference is to
'author/donor', with the implied donation under the terms of the GPL.

Nathan Kurz
na...@ve...

[webmin-l] Suse 9.3 - cannot access webmin

[malkajef <mal...@or...>]

Please excuse the very basic question, but I am a complete newbie to linux 
(using Suse 9.3) and I was advised to install webmin to configure my 
wireless and samba more easily.

I downloaded webmin-1.220-1.noarch.rpm from 
http://www.webmin.com/download.html, installed it as su using  rpm -U 
webmin-1.220-1.noarch.rpm .  The install went well and searching for it in 
YaST I find it is in fact installed - but shown with the "locked icon" 
indicating it apparently cannot be modified.

My problem is that when I enter  http://localhost:10000/ in a browser I get 
an error message
"The connection was refused when attempting to contact localhost:10000"

At the time, the browser can successfully access the internet. Not really 
knowing my way around linux I do not know what to look for to solve the 
problem.  I've searched the web but have not come up with anything.

Also, not important but it might be a clue, webmin does  not appear on the K 
Menus.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Jeff 

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Barry <we...@i1...>]

Joe Cooper wrote:

> Hi Barry and all,
>
> Sorry for jumping in a bit late in this licensing three.  A guy's 
> gotta sleep sometime.

Agreed - that last post of mine was right before I went to sleep. And 
jsut because I was not sure, after I sent it I googled some "dual 
licensing matters".

>
> But, I can bring the license discussion to a satisfying conclusion for 
> everyone with this one post.  There is nothing to debate, as the legal 
> issues are all very clear.

I don't think it is just so simple.

But first let me make clear I wish you the best - web min is the first 
sw I install on new servers.

>
> The free version of Virtualmin (now called Virtualmin GPL to avoid 
> confusion with Virtualmin Professional) is licensed under the GPL.
>
> The commercial version is copyrighted software and is not covered by 
> the GPL.

OK, so I know no lawyer told you this or to say this.

GPL software is copyright software, just like all software that is not 
explicitly in the public domain.

So right away I am not comfortable with where this is heading...

>   Jamie Cameron (and now Virtualmin, Inc., of which Jamie is a 50% 
> shareholder) holds the entire copyright to the Virtualmin codebase, 


I haven't seen the codebase, but are you sure? Every single line of code 
was either written by Jamie or has a written assignment of copyright to him?

I am not sure, but it may be that others, or even I, have posted a line 
or two about a potential bug fix along the way, and that code made it 
into the code base. I think it safe to assume any code thus entered is 
GPL, but not safe to assume that any code thus entered is copyright by 
Jamie. Is there any such code?

I remind you that it is the existence or non-existence of such small 
snippets of code that started the whole Caldera fiasco, so this is not a 
theoretical or hypothetical point.

How do you *really* know the entire code base is copyright by Jamie?


> and thus it can be licensed in any way he (or the company) choose to 
> license it, including a non-Open Source license.

Assuming the copyright is held by Jamie, this is true only to a point.

GPL'd code can not be "un-GPL'd". You can attach a dual license to it, 
but only within the constraints of GPL. In general, this mean that the 
license must not be *more restrictive* then GPL.

Look at it this way please: If you are writing code to a GPL code base 
(which I am sure you agree you are), then any derivative works are GPLd 
by the definition of GPL. The Virtualmin Pro code is already GPL'd form 
the minute you release it. So a dual license would need to be compatible 
with that.

Withholding code upon release of a fork is *not* GPL compatible.

FSF would be happy to advise you on this, I am sure. There is already a 
section on their web site dealing with the issues of compatible and 
incompatible licenses.

>
> This does not conflict with the GPL, though it seems to be a common 
> misconception that it does.


Having dual license does not conflict.

Having the second license which conflicts with GPL is what is wrong here.

> The GPL is a license.  A license dictates what folks who do not hold 
> the copyright can do with code.  It does not have any bearing on what 
> the holder of the copyright can do with the code.  


That is absolutely incorrect. The GPL very clearly states what can and 
can not be done with the code. Derivative works *must* be GPL. Every 
copy of GPL plainly states this, and saying otherwise here will never 
make it so,

> We hold the copyright, and thus we are releasing a dual-licensed 
> product, as Craig pointed out TrollTech, MySQL AB, and many others do 
> in order to provide a commercial product along-side a non-commercial 
> GPL product.  

The difference is, those groups release a product under dual licenses 
simultaneously. the code base is identical, or at least I found no 
mention in my search last night that it is otherwise.

The motivation for that, I discovered, is not to have separate forks, 
some of which have features people would be willing to pay for. It is 
because they have users among their user base who incorporate their 
product into their own code bases, which are closed source or otherwise 
non-GPL compatible. IOW, those users can't afford to have the GPL 
"infect" their own code base, forcing the code base from closed source 
to open.

So, these users are willing to pay for the alternative license. they get 
the right to use the code as they need to, in a closed source manner, 
but they do *not* (AFAICT) get *different* code. They get that 
intangible right of usage (a different license) for their money, and 
perhaps increased or favorable support and other services.

This is *very* different from what you are proposing to do. Again I ask, 
have you really run it past a lawyer familiar with the intellectual 
property issues surrounding GPL code?Have you queried FSF to see if your 
plan is compatible with GPL?



> We are not breaking new ground here, and there is no legal debate 
> about whether a person who holds the copyright can license it in any 
> way they like.  


I don't know if it is new or not, but it most certainly is not the same 
ground as trod upon by the examples you quoted above.

And yes, that you are proposing to license a derivative work of GPL code 
that is no longer compatible with GPL is new grounds to me.

> This is a time-tested business model for predominantly Open Source 
> companies.  It is not the only one, but it is one that works and is 
> well within the rights of copyright holders.


It is *not* true that your "ransomware" approach is tried and true. A 
non-GPL fork is *never* acceptable, and it has to do with the terms of 
GPL, not any business model or not.

>
> There is no "legal mess" that we can get into, as we are the copyright 
> holders.  The GPL doesn't create an obligation in us to continue to 
> provide all of our future work for free

Not "free as in beer", but it does create an obligation to make it "free 
as in speech" forever. You simply can not un-GPL code. You may charge 
for the distribution of GPL code as the market will bear, but you can 
not impose the obligation to charge on anyone else.

> , nor does it obligate us to continue to license our work in the same 
> way we have in the past.  


Absolutely it does require that you continue to license it under the 
GPL. If you want to dual license it under another compatible license, 
that is fine. But incompatible licenses added to GPL are *not* fine.

This is all in plain English in the GPL itself. If your attorneys 
advised you differently, then maybe it is worth considering getting a 
second opinion.

> We are not altering the license of the already GPL version of 
> Virtualmin, and we have no desire to do so.  We are both Open Source 
> fanatics and have been for far longer than it has been trendy to be 
> so, and we will continue to work on Open Source projects (including 
> Webmin, Usermin, and Virtualmin GPL).


I know you guys have been at this a long time. My private email has 
contained surprises that folks as experienced as you are so far off base 
on this matter.

>
> I hope this clears things up for anyone who might have questions about 
> the license.

I hope my message has people looking more closely into the matter 
instead of taking a "wish it were so" approach. After all, jsut last 
month the Mambo/Joomla developers split from he actual copyright holder, 
the developers feeling the product should be GPL only, and Miro (An 
Australian entity) signaling that they wanted to dual -license the code 
in the future. It is not so simple.

>
> I certainly encourage you to query legal council, if you reckon we 
> (and MySQL AB and TrollTech and AMD and Perl Foundation and dozens or 
> hundreds of other entities who offer products under the GPL and some 
> other license, whether proprietary or otherwise) are all wrong about 
> how we can license our own software.  

None of them have the same licensing scheme as you do, tot he best of my 
knowledge. If you know otherwise, feel free to show me where.

The FSF  is the definitive place to start with licensing issues. Look at 
http://www.fsf.org/fsf/licensing for example. Note that below there it 
states: "Members of the Free Software community are encouraged to 
consult with the FSF regarding licensing issues."




> But I assure you there is no debate in the GNU community about 
> dual-licensed code being permissible.  In fact, there have been a 
> number of official GNU projects (i.e. Ghostscript) that were 
> dual-licensed.



> Nothing to debate here.  Really.

Simply not true.

Some legal risks:

1 - One of your Pro customers will go ahead and release the sw anyway 
under the claim that it is GPL.
2 - A Pro customer will claim the don't need to pay you after delivery 
on the same basis.
3 - Copyright and licensing issues could infect OpenCountry products 
should they include the Pro version. Their attorneys, associated, with 
the venture capital community here in Silicon Valley, will certainly go 
over the licensing of all code with a fine tooth comb. If code is 
improperly   licensed, it is a serious risk factor to the investors, and 
so OpenCountry has fiduciary obligations to make sure it is not so. If 
you are looking for a second (and trustworthy source of legal opinions) 
why not ask them to put you in touch with their guys.
4 - Someone contacts FSF compliance group with your dual licensing 
scheme and FSF comes after you to get back into compliance, and then 
your paying customers look for ways to recover their charges as whatever 
contracts you had with them may no longer be enforceable (depending on 
the wording of course)
5 - Someone gets in touch with OpenCountry and asks them to look into 
the licensing terms, and if they are not satisfied, it puts at risk the 
question of sponsorship terms.
6 - someone else makes the claim that at least part of the copyright, 
even a single line of code, is held by them,not you, and thus they are 
entitled to at least some of your revenue. This is similar to (but not 
exactly the same as) the SCO case.

I too am an open source fanatic. I think as a community we have a lot 
better things to do then get bogged down in licensing matters like this 
in the courts. It sucks the air out of the movement, and it makes it 
harder to pursue legitimate and effective business models. It does this 
by creating the ability for closed source advocates to spread FUD.

This is a matter easily resolved. Contact FSF discretely or even 
anonymously. See what they say.

I understand your desire to get paid for the work yo do. We saw this day 
coming at Cobalt many years ago, when this type of software would be 
widely needed but very difficult to charge for, the investment and 
entrepreneurial communities here continue to have a very active 
discussion on business models surrounding open source code, and the jury 
is still out.

But all discussions are premised on adhering to the original license of 
the code, and it is widely accepted that once a code base is GPL'd it 
can never be undone. Perhaps a proprietary fork can be made later if, 
and this is a big if, here is a closed-source fork from the very 
beginning. IIRC this was the history of Ghostscript, but I may very well 
be wrong about that.

But I know of no examples where a derivative work of GPL code was deemed 
proprietary, even for a period of time, with the intent of GPL'ing it 
later, and having FSF actually say that met the terms of GPL. Yet, in a 
nutshell, this is precisely what you are planning to do.

Part of being an Open source fanatic is understanding the terms of the 
licenses, and what the implications are.

I think creating a new company is a good idea. In the case of Mambo, 
last month it was a foundation, but whatever, that is not important. 
That there is an entity tat has been assigned the copyrights (it  has, 
hasn't it?) is a good thing because it allows businesses to scale. It 
also (assuming yo set it up right) might protect you personally from any 
legal liabilities due to licensing matters. But that is way more 
complicated legal issues then I can even begin to outline because IANAL. 
Still, it is the right thing to do.

When I was at Cobalt, we had developers from Samba and Linux Kernel on 
staff. IIRC, before we released any products that used the code they 
created, we needed to provide that back to the organizations, all under 
the terms of GPL. Not only that, but the code itself was included on the 
machines we built. That meant that anyone else was free to come out with 
competing products, and that was a risk we took.

Similarly, that someone else is getting a product you release, whether 
they pay for it or not, does not grant them special rights under the 
GPL. You *must* release the code if you release the product.

Similarly, if OpenCountry releases the Pro version as part of its 
products, but does not release the code, then it could be held in 
violation of GPL as well. Extremely unlikely they are going to go to bat 
for you in that case.

Really better to look at this carefully, and discuss with others who are 
legally qualified and you trust to advise you on if these issues are 
valid or not. Frankly, it should be part of the business plan for your 
new company whether  I raised the issues or not. So, if you ask folks 
like your IP attorneys, and FSF, and maybe even OpenCountry, and they 
are satisfied, then I will be happy to stand corrected.

But I don't have anything really to lose here except a little pride. You 
are looking to expand your livelihood, and I want you to be able to do 
that, but I am suggesting you have horse blinders on and should take 
them off before you get going to fast. I am also suggesting to you (and 
I could discuss this off list) that with the blinders off, there are 
better ways to make a buck of such a fine product then a questionable 
licensing scheme.


I hope you will tanke another look at these matters. It is not really so 
difficult to do, and people you ask will want to help you do the right 
thing.

Best,

Barry

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional

[Joe C. <jo...@sw...>]

Craig White wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 17:01 -0500, Joe Cooper wrote:

> I'm going to try to keep this a little more tightly defined as you have
> enough on your plate.
> 
> Much of my point involves 'real users' vs. 'virtual users' - Those with
> a shell and a home directory and those that don't have a shell or a home
> directory. The user db being /etc/passwd or sqldb or sasldb or ldap db

Ah, now we're getting to the heart of the matter, and one I can 
understand...though I suspect (I don't know yet who our customers will 
be, but this is my suspicion) that we're not targeting mass-mail servers 
like you're operating (though it sounds like a nice setup).  I'm gonna 
have to consult with our customers to find out if this is something 
they'd want.  There is no reason we couldn't implement it this 
way...it's just that having user accounts provides a lot of benefits and 
features that just aren't possible, or at least not without getting 
hopelessly complex in the implementation, without user accounts (whether 
those user accounts are stored in LDAP or /etc/passwd is orthogonal, and 
we'll be supporting LDAP more in the future).

> Sieve - If you were familiar with Horde/IMP/Ingo in it's current
> incarnation, you would understand. It's virtually out of the box set up
> so that users can maintain their own filters, set their own vacation
> replies, blacklists, whitelists, and 'fileinto' folders. Unlike
> procmail, user doesn't need to have a shell account at all.

Sounds very cool indeed.  I'm impressed by how far Horde/IMP/Ingo have come.

Virtualmin Professional sets things up in such a way that all of these 
things are possible, as well, at both the user and domain level. 
Usermin just doesn't provide an easy to understand way to configure 
them.  Auto-reply has gotten much easier in the latest release, but the 
rest of it definitely needs work.  It's very well hidden right now.  The 
use does have to have a shell account, however, but I don't view this as 
a negative--we need that shell account for other stuff anyway.  If 
having shell accounts is a problem, simply disabling all login types 
other than POP/IMAP/webmail brings the user account down to the level of 
a mailbox account in a system like you describe.  So, we can drop down 
to that level if we have users, but we can't climb up to having user 
account features if we don't have user accounts.  ;-)

> I used procmail for a few years and I liked it. Ingo (part of the Horde
> project) does interface with it and is probably the best example I have
> seen of making procmail user friendly. When I migrated to cyrus-imapd,
> sieve was part of the migration and it's simple enough - in fact, not as
> powerful as procmail but it has none of the overhead of procmail either.

I've not seen it in action, so I'll have to spend some time with Sieve 
to know.  I don't find procmail a resource problem on any of our test 
boxes, but admittedly our biggest test box only gets/send 20,000 or so 
messaages a day.  I think, again we're back to the question of "what is 
the system being used for".  And I don't think mass-hosting of email 
accounts is what Virtualmin Professional servers are going to be doing. 
   Virtualmin does have a mode of operation where it can deal 
exclusively with a single domains mail, plus private websites (i.e. 
~username style sites), but it's pretty much un-used by anyone except 
the company that sponsored that feature years ago.

It would actually be a pretty cool product to develop--a 
Webmin/Usermin/Mailmin(tm) bundle that sets all of the stuff up similar 
to what you've described with no user accounts and tuned for extreme 
performance.  We won't be developing it at Virtualmin, Inc. but maybe 
someone else will.  ;-)

> Cyrus - LDAP - virtual users, no shell account whatsoever. Mailstore is
> complete in it's own tree and not spread in user directories. Virtual
> users don't have home directories to maintain. Cyrus scales - with it's
> murder architecture, you can spread the load among servers. Cyrus has
> shared mailboxes, public mailboxes, quotas. Dovecot - for all it's
> features clearly isn't in the same league.

This again becomes a problem for Virtualmin.  We want the mail spools to 
be spread out in the user directories and owned by the user.  Disk 
quotas rely on this fact about Maildir to do their job.  Load is 
probably not our big concern with email in a virtual domain system.

> I have to believe that you have chosen dovecot for your pop/imap server
> because you really aren't familiar with cyrus-imapd (or ldap).

Hehehe...No comment.  (Other than: Dovecot supports deployment in a 
manner that looks a lot like Cyrus including LDAP users, if you really 
wanted to go that route...where Cyrus does not support deployment in a 
manner that looks like Dovecot.)

> I guess when I see so many large installations of universities and
> corporations using cyrus-imapd, horde/imp, it seems to be an indication
> of their assessment of the performance, scalability and feature sets
> that some people do want.

Certainly.  I just don't believe mail performance is the biggest concern 
on a Virtualmin server.  If it proves to be a problem (I've never heard 
reports of it being one), we'll definitely address it.

> Now if your target is the virtual hosting companies serving 15-30
> domains and 500-3000 users, perhaps these issues are less important.

No, we're targeting much larger servers than that, at least from a 
number of domains perspective, and we have it on servers much larger 
than that.  We expect some environments will have 500 or more (small) 
domains per server.  But I think you over-estimate the resource usage of 
Postfix+Dovecot+Procmail and under-estimate the resource usage of 
SpamAssassin+ClamAV (these two are where /all/ of our servers mail work 
is going on...Procmail is not even a blip on the radar...and we can't 
drop Spam and AV scanning and I don't know of equal products in this 
field that require fewer resources).  I'd be willing to wager that a 
Cyrus+Sieve server is no more than 5% more efficient than a 
Procmail+Dovecot server, when anti-virus and anti-spam measures are 
identical on each.  In short, I respectfully disagree with your 
assessment of where resource usage goes in a mail server--at least mail 
servers running in a virtual hosting environment like where Virtualmin 
is intended to be running.

> This of course, represents my own limited view and it's clear to me that
> you and Jamie have given this a lot of thought and have quite a lot more
> experience among you both than I have (by a very large margin). And of
> course, you can adapt over time anyway.

You clearly have a lot of good mail server operating experience, 
possibly more than Jamie or I, and I'm not going to discount it.  I only 
disagree with you on these few points because I believe we're targeting 
a different type of deployment than you've seen.  What is good for a 
dedicated high-load mail server may not be what is good for a shared 
multi-domain hosting environment with many admins (limited to their own 
domain, of course) and many users of widely varying knowledge levels.  I 
believe we've gone the right direction, but if we see a customers server 
taking a beating because of the way we've handled mail accounts, we'll 
fix it--and maybe the way to fix it will be to add a fully virtualized 
LDAP mailbox account type, or maybe it will be to remove procmail from 
the equation (but again, on our servers, SpamAssassin and ClamAV are 
where all of our CPU is going and there's nothing I'm aware of that we 
can do to remove that work).

> ps - if you would like to see a cyrus/sieve - horde/imp/sieve/(more)
> installation, I could create a login account for you at one of my
> clients systems.

I wouldn't turn down a chance to see one up and running nicely.  It's 
been at least three years since I've setup Horde for testing (and I 
ended up with OpenWebmail back then for my client deployment), so it 
would be a distraction that I can't afford to take on right now.  But 
I'd certainly like to see it...sounds like maybe they've gotten filter 
editing right, and we definitely need to improve filter editing in 
Usermin.  You didn't even know all of this stuff was possible with 
Usermin, so clearly it needs to be implemented in an easier to use way!

Thanks for the follow-up post.  As you've said, we are willing to adapt, 
and it may be that I have to revisit this issue in a month or six when a 
hosting provider with a very different workload shows up (maybe they 
host servers with twenty domains and 10,000 email accounts for each 
domain, in which case we'll probably need to rethink everything about 
email).

Regards,
Joe

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 23:05 -0700, Barry wrote:
> Craig White wrote: 
> > 
> > ----
> > you should have at least looked at the license before you commented.
> > It's not GPL, it's BSD
> > 
> > http://www.webmin.com/intro.html
> >   
> Yeah, I thought this morning that it would work better if it was BSD
> instead of GPL - that would be fine. But before I looked, Joe Cooper
> wrote (and I trust he should know):
> 
> > Thanks for the encouragement!  We felt that way too.  It just became
> > apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of commercial
> > hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of the GPL
> > version.
> 
> 
> Hey wait , even though Joe wrote that, I followed your advice and
> checked - we are talking about virtual min, not webmin. And on
> http://www.swelltech.com/virtualmin/ it says:
> 
----
and this perhaps points out some license confusion.

first of all, why can't the greater UK people learn how to spell the
word license ?  ;-)

I couldn't find it.
# locate LICENSE|grep webmin

which is when I went to the webmin website (my second mistake) as this
license has nothing to do with virtualmin.

then of course I see the UK spelling method of the word 'licence'

# locate LICENCE|grep webmin
/opt/webmin-1.210/LICENCE
/opt/webmin-1.210/LICENCE.ja

and assuming that virtualmin would install into the same
installation/binary tree, the file LICENCE probably wouldn't reflect the
proper licensing of both Webmin and Virtualmin which are as you and Joe
have pointed out, quite different - but perhaps this is already taken
care of when Virtualmin is installed - I wouldn't know since I haven't a
use for Virtualmin.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

[webmin-l] [FAQ] Webmin/Usermin/Virtualmin - On the fly updates

[Martin M. <mm...@me...>]

######################################################################

History:
--------

16.09.2005
Webmin-Development-Version 1.226 released
Usermin-Development-Version 1.155 released

16.07.2005
Webmin-Version 1.220 released as stable
Usermin-Version 1.150 released as stable
Virtualmin-Development-Version 2.601 released

03.05.2005
Virtualmin-Version 2.60 released as stable

######################################################################

Current Stable Release for Webmin is 1.220
http://webmin.mamemu.de/devel/tarballs/webmin-1.220.tar.gz
http://webmin.mamemu.de/devel/tarballs/webmin-1.220-1.noarch.rpm
http://webmin.mamemu.de/devel/tarballs/webmin-1.220-minimal.tar.gz

Current Development Release for Webmin is 1.226
http://webmin.mamemu.de/devel/tarballs/webmin-1.226.tar.gz

Current Stable Release for Usermin is 1.150
http://webmin.mamemu.de/devel/tarballs/usermin-1.150.tar.gz
http://webmin.mamemu.de/devel/tarballs/usermin-1.150-1.noarch.rpm

Current Development Release for Usermin is 1.155
http://webmin.mamemu.de/devel/tarballs/usermin-1.155.tar.gz

Current Stable Release for VirtualMin is 2.60
http://webmin.mamemu.de/download/virtualmin/virtual-server-2.60.wbm.gz

Current Development Release for VirtualMin is 2.601
http://webmin.mamemu.de/download/virtualmin/virtual-server-2.601.wbm.gz
	
######################################################################

Important notice:
There are three announcments for stable versions.

a) Maybe the first one comes with a "on the fly"-update.
b) Paying sourceforge-members who are subscribed to notifications
about webmin/usermin-file uploads.
c) The one and only official one comes from Jamie Cameron directly.

Virtualmin has gone Virtualmin Pro:
Jamie Cameron and Joe Cooper founded Virtualmin Inc.
Please visit http://www.virtualmin.com/ for details

If you are anoyed by these post you can filter this with procmail
scanning for

X-Webmin: update

in the header.


bis dahin - kind regards

Martin Mewes

-- 
######################################################################
http://www.webmin.com/		| Webbased Administration Tool for
http://webmin.mamemu.de/	| Unixoid Systems :-)
Webmin Translation Team
######################################################################

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional

[Freddie C. <fca...@sd...>]

> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 08:30 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 15:16 +1000, Jamie Cameron wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 13:52, Craig White wrote:

>> This is something we'll be looking at in the coming weeks.  We're
>> migrating from an Outlook, Postfix, Qpopper, Unix account setup to
>> SquirrelMail, Postfix, Cyrus-IMAP, OpenLDAP setup.  First server
>> will have ~1600 accounts for  all district staff.  Second server in
>> January-ish timeframe will have ~5000 student accounts spread
>> across 10 domains.  Good to know the Users and Groups module will
>> work with LDAP users.  :)  More than likely, I'll be posting on here
>> with a bunch of "Oh crap, how do you do this using Webmin"
>> questions, revolving around Cyrus and LDAP integration in Webmin.

> ----
> Right off the bat - I would suggest that you make sure that you get
> the 'autocreate' patches into cyrus-imapd.

> http://email.uoa.gr/projects/cyrus/

> The autocreate INBOX, shared folders, subscriptions and quota patches
> pretty much eliminate the need for any scripting when creating
> mailboxes.

Hey, cool.  Didn't know about these.  Thanks for the link.  I'll
definitely be investigating these.

> The autocreate sieve I found absolutely ideal...a new user created on
> the system automatically get's scored spam mail into a separate
> 'junk' mailbox before he's ever logged on to the system.

That would be very useful.  I was wonfering how to create a default
SIEVE script.  Was beginning to think I'd have to post instructions
for creating the first rule as part of the welcome message for new
accounts.  :)

> I found that only some of them were included in the RHEL 3 & 4 (and
> clone) distributions so I have opted not to use theirs but the ones
> from Simon Matter

> http://www.invoca.ch/pub/packages/cyrus-imapd/

We'll be using either Debian or FreeBSD, so these won't be too useful.
 :)

--=20
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP        Helpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73             (250) 377-HELP [377-4357]
fc...@sd...               hel...@sd...

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional

[Craig W. <cra...@az...>]

On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 08:30 -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 15:16 +1000, Jamie Cameron wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 13:52, Craig White wrote:

> This is something we'll be looking at in the coming weeks.  We're
> migrating from an Outlook, Postfix, Qpopper, Unix account setup to
> SquirrelMail, Postfix, Cyrus-IMAP, OpenLDAP setup.  First server will
> have ~1600 accounts for  all district staff.  Second server in
> January-ish timeframe will have ~5000 student accounts spread across
> 10 domains.  Good to know the Users and Groups module will work with
> LDAP users.  :)  More than likely, I'll be posting on here with a
> bunch of "Oh crap, how do you do this using Webmin" questions,
> revolving around Cyrus and LDAP integration in Webmin.
----
Right off the bat - I would suggest that you make sure that you get the
'autocreate' patches into cyrus-imapd.

http://email.uoa.gr/projects/cyrus/

The autocreate INBOX, shared folders, subscriptions and quota patches
pretty much eliminate the need for any scripting when creating
mailboxes.

The autocreate sieve I found absolutely ideal...a new user created on
the system automatically get's scored spam mail into a separate 'junk'
mailbox before he's ever logged on to the system.

I found that only some of them were included in the RHEL 3 & 4 (and
clone) distributions so I have opted not to use theirs but the ones from
Simon Matter

http://www.invoca.ch/pub/packages/cyrus-imapd/

YMMV

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional

[Freddie C. <fca...@sd...>]

> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 15:16 +1000, Jamie Cameron wrote:
>> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 13:52, Craig White wrote:

>> My feeling is that the choice between LDAP-based mail systems and
>> those that use Unix accounts is a matter of philosophy, and of what
>> you want users to be able to do. Pure virtual users are great if you
>> are just talking about mailboxes, but if you want users to be able
>> to have home pages and FTP access, then they need to have Unix
>> accounts. Virtualmin is targeted more towards web hosting than
>> running masses of mailboxes, so I think that the Unix user approach
>> is the way to go.

>> That said, it is actually quite flexible - you can opt to use
>> Qmail+LDAP as a mail server, and it will create mailboxes as LDAP
>> users who do not necessarily even have to be Unix users. You can then
>> take advantage of all the features of LDAP and Cyrus, such as
>> clustering, IMAP-based mail readers and so on..

> ----
> I would simply guess that a virtual web host provider will have maybe
> 1 out of 10 accounts that will want a bunch of mailboxes in addition
> to the one or two shell accounts and the one virtual web host.

> I won't argue with your logic though - you've clearly demonstrated
> your ability to identify needs and satisfy them.

> I've been able to get what I need done in LDAP and cyrus-imapd with
> the changes you made to LDAP Users and Groups last January + the old
> but very effective cyrus-imapd 3rd party module (and the autocreate
> features of cyrus-imapd). Interestingly enough, you have provided
> enough building blocks so I can make it all work even though you don't
> use cyrus-imapd. As you know, I've been hoping that there would have
> been a groundswell of interest by others to drive you into spending
> time adapting webmin for cyrus-imapd support which clearly hasn't
> happened.

This is something we'll be looking at in the coming weeks.  We're
migrating from an Outlook, Postfix, Qpopper, Unix account setup to
SquirrelMail, Postfix, Cyrus-IMAP, OpenLDAP setup.  First server will
have ~1600 accounts for  all district staff.  Second server in
January-ish timeframe will have ~5000 student accounts spread across
10 domains.  Good to know the Users and Groups module will work with
LDAP users.  :)  More than likely, I'll be posting on here with a
bunch of "Oh crap, how do you do this using Webmin" questions,
revolving around Cyrus and LDAP integration in Webmin.

--=20
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP        Helpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73             (250) 377-HELP [377-4357]
fc...@sd...               hel...@sd...

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional

[Freddie C. <fca...@sd...>]

> On Fri, 2005-09-16 at 13:52, Craig White wrote:
>> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 17:01 -0500, Joe Cooper wrote:
>> ----
>> I'm going to try to keep this a little more tightly defined as you
>> have enough on your plate.

>> Much of my point involves 'real users' vs. 'virtual users' - Those
>> with a shell and a home directory and those that don't have a shell
>> or a home directory. The user db being /etc/passwd or sqldb or
>> sasldb or ldap db

>> Sieve - If you were familiar with Horde/IMP/Ingo in it's current
>> incarnation, you would understand. It's virtually out of the box set
>> up so that users can maintain their own filters, set their own
>> vacation replies, blacklists, whitelists, and 'fileinto' folders.
>> Unlike procmail, user doesn't need to have a shell account at all.

>> I used procmail for a few years and I liked it. Ingo (part of the
>> Horde project) does interface with it and is probably the best
>> example I have seen of making procmail user friendly. When I migrated
>> to cyrus-imapd, sieve was part of the migration and it's simple
>> enough - in fact, not as powerful as procmail but it has none of the
>> overhead of procmail either.

>> Cyrus - LDAP - virtual users, no shell account whatsoever.
>> Mailstore is complete in it's own tree and not spread in user
>> directories. Virtual users don't have home directories to maintain.
>> Cyrus scales - with it's murder architecture, you can spread the load
>> among servers. Cyrus has shared mailboxes, public mailboxes, quotas.
>> Dovecot - for all it's features clearly isn't in the same league.

>> I have to believe that you have chosen dovecot for your pop/imap
>> server because you really aren't familiar with cyrus-imapd (or
>> ldap).

>> I guess when I see so many large installations of universities and
>> corporations using cyrus-imapd, horde/imp, it seems to be an
>> indication of their assessment of the performance, scalability and
>> feature sets that some people do want.

>> Now if your target is the virtual hosting companies serving 15-30
>> domains and 500-3000 users, perhaps these issues are less important.

> My feeling is that the choice between LDAP-based mail systems and
> those that use Unix accounts is a matter of philosophy, and of what
> you want users to be able to do. Pure virtual users are great if you
> are just talking about mailboxes, but if you want users to be able to
> have home pages and FTP access, then they need to have Unix accounts.
> Virtualmin is targeted more towards web hosting than running masses of
> mailboxes, so I think that the Unix user approach is the way to go.

Actually, you don't need any real Unix user accounts for a webhosting
setup.  All you need is an FTP daemon that groks user accounts stored
in SQL, LDAP, or whatnot.  This is a configuration we've been using
for quite sometime now.  Pureftpd, Postfix, Courier-IMAP, MySQL,
Apache.  The only system users with account info in /etc/passwd are
the server admins.  Everybody else has virtual accounts.  When they
connect via FTP (login using their e-mail address), they are locked
into the www/ directory for their domain.  When they connect via IMAP
or POP, they can only view their own messages (login using their full
e-mail address).  Works like a charm.

If I grok'd LDAP, it'd work even better using Cyrus-IMAP.  But, for
the 60 domains and ~300 IMAP accounts running on that server, it works
really well.

> That said, it is actually quite flexible - you can opt to use
> Qmail+LDAP as a mail server, and it will create mailboxes as LDAP
> users who do not necessarily even have to be Unix users. You can then
> take advantage of all the features of LDAP and Cyrus, such as
> clustering, IMAP-based mail readers and so on..

--=20
Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP        Helpdesk / Network Support Tech.
School District 73             (250) 377-HELP [377-4357]
fc...@sd...               hel...@sd...

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional license

[Joe C. <jo...@sw...>]

Hi Barry and all,

Sorry for jumping in a bit late in this licensing three.  A guy's gotta 
sleep sometime.

But, I can bring the license discussion to a satisfying conclusion for 
everyone with this one post.  There is nothing to debate, as the legal 
issues are all very clear.

The free version of Virtualmin (now called Virtualmin GPL to avoid 
confusion with Virtualmin Professional) is licensed under the GPL.

The commercial version is copyrighted software and is not covered by the 
GPL.  Jamie Cameron (and now Virtualmin, Inc., of which Jamie is a 50% 
shareholder) holds the entire copyright to the Virtualmin codebase, and 
thus it can be licensed in any way he (or the company) choose to license 
it, including a non-Open Source license.

This does not conflict with the GPL, though it seems to be a common 
misconception that it does.  The GPL is a license.  A license dictates 
what folks who do not hold the copyright can do with code.  It does not 
have any bearing on what the holder of the copyright can do with the 
code.  We hold the copyright, and thus we are releasing a dual-licensed 
product, as Craig pointed out TrollTech, MySQL AB, and many others do in 
order to provide a commercial product along-side a non-commercial GPL 
product.  We are not breaking new ground here, and there is no legal 
debate about whether a person who holds the copyright can license it in 
any way they like.  This is a time-tested business model for 
predominantly Open Source companies.  It is not the only one, but it is 
one that works and is well within the rights of copyright holders.

There is no "legal mess" that we can get into, as we are the copyright 
holders.  The GPL doesn't create an obligation in us to continue to 
provide all of our future work for free, nor does it obligate us to 
continue to license our work in the same way we have in the past.  We 
are not altering the license of the already GPL version of Virtualmin, 
and we have no desire to do so.  We are both Open Source fanatics and 
have been for far longer than it has been trendy to be so, and we will 
continue to work on Open Source projects (including Webmin, Usermin, and 
Virtualmin GPL).

I hope this clears things up for anyone who might have questions about 
the license.

I certainly encourage you to query legal council, if you reckon we (and 
MySQL AB and TrollTech and AMD and Perl Foundation and dozens or 
hundreds of other entities who offer products under the GPL and some 
other license, whether proprietary or otherwise) are all wrong about how 
we can license our own software.  But I assure you there is no debate in 
the GNU community about dual-licensed code being permissible.  In fact, 
there have been a number of official GNU projects (i.e. Ghostscript) 
that were dual-licensed.

Nothing to debate here.  Really.

Regards,
Joe

Re: [webmin-l] More Virtualmin

[Roger B.A. K. <ro...@qu...>]

Jamie Cameron wrote:

>Ah, I see .. Unfortunately, that kind of setup is not yet supported. However, it may be in future, since it seems quite common.
> 
>I do have a question though - what is the advantage of using several different IPs for name-based virtual hosting, rather than a single IP?
>
>  
>


Legacy reasons.  We're merging smaller servers onto one larger one, and 
since we don't control all of our users' DNS, it's easier just to not 
change it.

[webmin-l] Webmin Shorewall manual

[Rouke de J. <rou...@gm...>]

Hiya

 

First time ever posting on the list, so let me introduce myself first, I'm
Rouke de Jong, Shorewall and Webmin user :-). I have been working with
Shorewall for quite some time now to much satisfaction. I love the way
Shorewall administration is integrated in Webmin, but unfortunately I've
never been able to find a proper manual how to configure Shorewall using
Webmin. So I took it upon myself to make it, as is common in the linux
world, it's not totally finished, but I wanted to ask some of you about your
opinion regarding my work so far. The link is
http://130.89.226.17/hd3/shorewall%20webmin/Shore-Webmin.htm but please be
gentle, my connection is not up to massive visits. Well, thanks in advance.

 

Rouke

Re: [webmin-l] while we're at it (cyrus imapd)

[Jamie C. <jca...@we...>]

Usermin isn't really the best mail reader to use with cyrus, although that hasn't stopped people from trying :-) It really works best with more traditional mail stores, and has the advantage that it runs with the correct permissions to access all mail files directly.

It may be better to instead use a web-based mail reader more suited to LDAP, such as squirrelmail..

 - Jamie

-----Original Message-----

From:  Craig White <cra...@az...>
Subj:  [webmin-l] while we're at it (cyrus imapd)
Date:  Fri 16 Sep 2005 2:11 pm
Size:  1K
To:  web...@li...

I cannot conceive of a method with which to configure 'Read User Mail'
module to use cyrus mail folder storage

/var/spool/imap/c
                 /user/craig
                            /subfolder
                            /subfolder
                 /user/charles
                            /subfolder
/var/spool/imap/r
                 /user/root

files are all owned by cyrus:mail (not that it should make a difference)

and IMAP subscriptions/seen/ & cyrus mailboxes db are in another tree
thought this wouldn't matter since you don't do IMAP at all with the
webmail implementation and I'm thinking that it could be havoc to give a
user access around cyrus and the mailboxes db would be none the wiser.

So I spent only a few minutes trying to figure out how to configure the
module, decided that it didn't lend itself to the mbox/maildir and user
home directories slant the module relies upon.

It's not important to me - just wondering if I am missing the blindingly
obvious.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download
it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own
Sony(tm)PSP.  Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php
-
Forwarded by the Webmin mailing list at web...@li...
To remove yourself from this list, go to
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-list

Re: [webmin-l] Virtualmin Professional

[Barry <we...@i1...>]

Craig White wrote:

>
>----
>you should have at least looked at the license before you commented.
>It's not GPL, it's BSD
>
>http://www.webmin.com/intro.html
>  
>
Yeah, I thought this morning that it would work better if it was BSD 
instead of GPL - that would be fine. But before I looked, Joe Cooper 
wrote (and I trust he should know):

> Thanks for the encouragement!  We felt that way too.  It just became 
> apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of commercial 
> hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of the GPL version. 



Hey wait , even though Joe wrote that, I followed your advice and 
checked - we are talking about virtual min, not webmin. And on 
http://www.swelltech.com/virtualmin/ it says:

"09/12/2005 Virtualmin had gone Pro! Visit Virtualmin.com to find out 
more. We're now providing two versions of Virtualmin, one GPL and one 
proprietary with additional features. The GPL version will trail 
development of the proprietary version by some amount."

and

"07/23/2003 Ransom for the first milestone has been raised. Tye Gaddis 
and Hosting4Less.com were the contributors today who pushed us over the 
top! The current module has been released under a GPL license today. 
Kudos to all of the sponsors."

So, the code base we are talking about has been GPL for 2+ years. I 
stand by my comments and questions. On what legal basis can GPL code be 
productized, released, and source code *not* made available?

Not trying to stir up trouble, but with such a high profile project as 
this, it is important to not make any missteps that will misguide the 
community in what GPL actually means, and not to put the code at risk.

This is interesting:

"What's the license?
Virtualmin is licensed under the GNU General Public License.

Virtualmin is periodically ransomed off under a non-GPL license to fund 
major new developments. A $200, or higher, sponsorship is required for 
you to receive the module including the "ransom" features. You may then 
use the module in any way you see fit for commercial or non-commercial 
purposes. However, you cannot resell the module, relicense the module, 
or give away the module, without discussing it with us (and purchasing 
the rights to do so)."

Is there any other history of other projects doing this, and having the 
general community that guards the GPL approve? Maybe there is, I don't 
know for sure. But I think you guys should look very closely at this 
model before jumping and creating a legal mess and expense for yourselves.

And if you have it on some authority that it is fine, then can you 
please cite that authority so the rest of us can consider this method 
for promoting GPL code too?

Here is an opinion from folks at Swelltech: 
http://www.swelltech.com/virtualmin/ransomware.html that cites no legal 
basis at all, but is filled with warm goodhearted intentions I wholly 
agree with.

I would maintain that given otherwise, this "ransomware" concept is 
about as contrary to the spirit and the letter of GPL as you can get. It 
is quite simple really - you release the product to even one person, you 
must release the code under the GPL to them (and possibly to everyone?).

Now, if it was called "Virtualmin Beta" instead of "Virtualmin Pro" you 
might be able to make the rhetorical case that the product isn't yet 
really released per se, but you didn't hear that from me because I 
believe that any GPL project should have a public anonymous-read source 
code control system with all available code :)


>Furthermore, the sweat and the equity is to those that put it into it
>which as far as I know, has to be like at least 98% Jamie if not higher
>but only those who contributed code to it are entitled to question it
>and I doubt there are many who have earned that right.
>  
>

That is a nice warm fuzzy but simply not true.

The GPL is the GPL. You can read it at gnu.org.

It doesn't say "some people have rights that others don't have". It says 
what it says. You simply can not fork a non-GPL branch off of a GPL code 
base. That is precisely the point of GPL.

Otherwise, companies like JBOSS would do that in a second and they would 
have a completely different business model then they do.

If you think anyone in the user base can not question what goes on, and 
make a difference, review the fiasco at the 
as-popular-as-webmin-and-maybe-more Mambo/Joomla split last month. See 
mamboserver.com discussion forums, and then opensourcematters.com (or 
.org not sure which) where the developers moved to first, and then to 
joomla.com where the developers landed.

Try posting in those three places that the users have no say and no 
clout about the direction of the code and see what happens :)

Unless you are RMS, who sees only the GPL and "everything else", you 
will see that this is the reason why other licenses exist. so, if the 
product is not GPL then it doesn't matter because the other license will 
allow what I was asking about and that is fine.

Perhaps you think *I* have no standing in the matter, or that I am 
shooting in the breeze. You would be very wrong. I was one of the early 
development managers at Cobalt Networks deciding these issues every day. 
Cobalt was the first wildly successful company to blend open source 
(mostly but not all GPL) with proprietary code.  The code served 
essentially the same functions that webmin and usermin does now: 
managing hosted Linux servers. And yes, I had my hands in an awful lot 
of it at the code level. I can offer quite a bit of insight into what 
makes people spend money on a product like this, and yes, I have been 
paid for writing, testing, and marketing this type of code for worldwide 
installations.


>Lastly, if Jamie and Joe can prosper by taking their base and even
>devote more time and energy, then the code base would have to benefit so
>there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't be a winner all around.
>  
>

Agreed that they should be allowed to prosper if they can. But violating 
the license they chose would not be the right way to do it. I trust they 
are getting good advice on this matter from Open Country - I know folks 
there, and I hope they wouldn't blunder on this point.

>Clearly Jamie has the benefit of each and every doubt besides the
>gratitude for his generosity this far. If he decided to not develop it
>any further, I would presume that it could be forked under BSD
>restrictions.
>  
>
It is not an issue of benefit of the doubt. It is a matter of adhering 
to the license terms that were freely chosen. Maybe this is allowed, I 
am jsut asking for citations in the gnu community where they guard this 
kind of thing jealously, and have seen it all before.

I highly doubt the gnu community would ever accept a bsd fork from gpl 
code being acceptable. I have been in meetings with companies such as 
Yahoo, Apple, Hotmail/Microsoft where they all raised the issue of the 
ability to fork BSD *nix without sharing back as the reason why they 
chose BSD instead of Linux.

It could be forked within GPL though regardless of if Jamie or anyone 
else chooses to develop it or not. This is basically what happened with 
Mambo a few weeks ago, which you will recall I raised as an issue last 
week, before this Virtualmin announcement even occurred.

As I understood the response, we were told no forks would happen. Yet 
only days later, we are told there will be, for the first time, a 
"professional" branch, and a non-professional branch. It was this kind 
of sloppiness in making announcements that caused the otherwise 
unnecessary (IMHO) hard feelings in the Mambo community.

BTW, for potential developers of open source code: Consider the license 
you choose *very carefully*. What starts out as a hobby or jsut a few 
lines of code you give to the community may in fact be restricted form 
making you the kind of money that might be available to you later, 
sometimes much later, based on the early decision you made.

Seriously.

Best,

Barry