On Apr 30, 2006 06:24 PM, Balint Reczey <balint_reczey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> --- Martin Kauss <bishoph at open-xchange.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Apr 28, 2006 01:37 AM, Balint Reczey <balint_reczey at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Robert,
> > > 
> > > I you visit
> > > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-openxchange/ox-devel/open-xchange/
> > > you can see the progress of the packaging. 
> > > Currently the package builds but there are issues to be solved:
> > > 
> > > 1. Find an OpenLDAP config that is secure enough and works.
> > >    I think, that the current authentication mechanism has to be
> > > replaced
> > >    by per user authentication to the LDAP server like in that
> > tutorial:
> > >   
> > http://java.sun.com/products/jndi/tutorial/ldap/security/ldap.html
> > > 
> > > 2. Get some feedback about the database migration script.
> > >    http://www.open-xchange.org/oxwiki/StableUpgrade
> > > 
> > > 3. Licensing problem.
> > >    The previous versions of Open-Xchange were under GPL license.
> > IMO it
> > > 
> > >    was perfect for both users and developers. The Open-Xchange was
> > a 
> > >    protected trademark of Netline.
> > > 
> > >    The current stable version (0.8.2) of Open-Xchange is under GPL
> > and 
> > >    Creative Commons (CC) license. Generally the code is under GPL
> > and 
> > >    the web interface is under CC. Some problems of are mentioned on
> > > that
> > >    page: http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html
> > >    In short, the CC licenses do not meet with Debian Free 
> > >    Software Guidelines (DFSG), they are not DFSG free. 
> > > 
> > >    The previous OX versions weren't DFSG free either, since they
> > depend
> > > 
> > >    on Sun's closed source JavaMail API implementation, but there is
> > a  
> > >  
> > >    project to make Open-Xchange work on free Java tools by
> > improving
> > > the 
> > >    available tools and patching Open-Xchange:
> > >    http://www.open-xchange.org/oxwiki/FreeJDKs
> > >    After that project succeeds, Open-Xchange will become a 
> > >    true, DFSG compliant Open Source Software.
> > >    
> > >    By releasing the 0.8.2 version under CC+GPL Netline made that
> > goal
> > >    impossible without forking the source at the last GPL version,
> > RC3.
> > >    Generally the web interface is CC licensed, the business logic
> > and  
> > >    webdav interface is under GPL.
> > >    Someone, who would like to keep OX a GPL software could fork the
> > 
> > >    source tree at RC3, get the GPL part of 0.8.2, then fix the web 
> > >    interface to work with the new business logic. It's not hard,
> > since 
> > >    there is no big difference between RC3 and 0.8.2.
> > >    
> > >    Remember XFree86? XFree86 developers changed the license to a
> > more 
> > >    restricive one. The project forked, and now, we have the new,
> > shiny 
> > >    X.org.
> > > 
> > >    I think Netline should keep GPL as the license of Open-Xchange 
> > >    Community Edition and rerelease 0.8.2 under GPL.
> > > 
> > >    Please send replies to general at open-xchange.org to keep the
> > thread
> > > on 
> > >    one list.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Balint
> > >    
> > > 
> > > --- Robert Penz <Robert.Penz at hitt.at> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Balint!
> > > > 
> > > > whats your timeframe and way to use 0.8.2 for your stable
> > packages?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 
> > > > Robert Penz
> > > > HITT - health information technologies tirol gmbh
> > > > Tel: +43-512-576523 - 232
> > > > Fax: +43-512-576523 - 70
> > > > email: robert.penz at hitt.at
> > > > 
> > > > "Windows Vista" is the abbreviation for "Windows with Viruses,
> > > > Instability, 
> > > > Spyware, Trojans and Adware"
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > User mailing list
> > > > User at open-xchange.org
> > > > http://www.open-xchange.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/user
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 		
> > > ___________________________________________________________ 
> > > To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all
> > new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > we changed the license to the CC because most (if not all)
> > HTML pages before SP1 were (and are still) copyrighted.
> > What do you think how copyrighted material fits into a "free"
> > context?
> > 
> > Our intension to use Creative Commons Deed was not driven 
> > to cut down rights.
> > 
> > I want to encourage you to consider this in all of your
> > further actions.
> > 
> > 
> > With kind regards,
> > 
> > Martin Kauss
> > 
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I thougth that the Open-Xchange software was released under GPL. I read
> the COPYING file, and i found the GPL license and nothing else except
> mentioning the OPEN-XCHANGE trademark of Netline GmbH and third party
> modules wich are out of scope since i don't use them to build the
> Debian packages.
> Now I read the HTML templates and i found:
> 
> <html>
> <head>
> <meta name="DC.Relation" content="http://www.open-xchange.org">
> <meta name="DC.Creator" content="Netline Internet Service GmbH">
> <meta name="DC.Rights" content="(c) Netline Internet Service GmbH. All
> rights reserved.">
> ....
> 
> These meta tags are not shown to the users (and me). 
> The "All rights reserved." incompatible with GPL, since by releasing
> something under GPL, you grant the right of modifying and distributing
> to others if they provide the source code of their modifications.
> 
> Now I see, that the CC licensing is not for cutting down rights, but it
> made clear that the COPYING file is not written properly since it does
> not mention parts that are _not_ under GPL.
> The COPYING file does not mention CC license in 0.8.2 either.
> I assumed that it was not intentional, but please fix the COPYING file 
> because it may bewilder other people and they may think that
> Open-Xchange Community edition is a GPL only software.
> 
> Cheers,
> Balint
> 


Hi Balint,

i will forward your request to people who know more about
legal and licenses than i do, but these people told me
that we do not need to mention the CC individually.

However, one issue why several people are working on other
licenses is, that the GPL was written to license program code
and not images, HTML files and content ...

Greetings,

Martin Kauss