> As a programmer, I'd prefer to see the Livingston RADIUS implementation
> GPL'd.
>....
> Has any thought been given to GPL'ing it? It does look like a win-win
> situation to me.
It's a win for the users...but I think Livingston's position is that they
don't want to pay a staff of programmers to produce code for their
competitors. Why should Computone, Ascend, Cisco and others benefit from
Livingston's work?
OTOH, what will happen to all the freely available enhanced radiusd's?
Will it be legal to distribute diffs at least rather than modified code?
That way, for example, if ESVA radiusd migrated to the 2.0 base code, the
diff to make ESVA-2.0 from plain 2.0 could be distributed, though the
actual ESVA-2.0 source could not.
"Free Software" is generally good for the users, but hard to make much
money from. Try telling Microsoft or Sun they should GPL their OS's or
environments.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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_______