Re: DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE RADIUS 2.0 SOURCE CODE!

Paul Andersen (paul-ml@odin.egate.net)
Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:51:12 -0500 (EST)

Call me crazy but I think the concept was that if they dont show
that they are restricting the code like they are then they cannot claim
that it is a 'private' code and should ascend use it and port it they
could then take legal action. I dont think it is a point of 'does ascend
have it' It's that for ascend to hjave gotten it they must have
downloaded it from livingston and therefore accepted the agreement.

Paul

-----------
Paul Andersen (InterNIC:PA137) paul@egate.net
System Administrator T: +1 (416) 447-8505x23
E-Gate Communications Inc. F: +1 (416) 447-6447
Toronto, Ontario P: +1 (416) 382-9316

"... and let me tell you! Them crows don't have much bandwidth!" -Blatte

On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Jon Lewis wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Stephen Diercouff wrote:
>
> > The point is that radius 2.0 source code is *only* available to owners of
> > Livingston products -- Livingston do not want other implementors of
> > radius-based products to continue to develop their products at Livingston's
> > expense. By prohibiting restribution of the code, and restricting initial
> > acquisition of the code to registered users, they can control it to a degree.
> > It's their code. It's their license terms. It's no big deal.
>
> This doesn't really make any sense to me. If Livingston thinks Ascend et
> al don't already have radius 2.0 source (assuming they want it), they're
> sadly mistaken. I think they may just want to keep radiusd 2.0 out of the
> hands of customers using only other companies' products.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
> Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/hr.
> ________Finger jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______
>
>