POP with REV ?

[Alex Tweedly]

Sean Shao wrote:

>> I understand why you'd initially hope for direct support within Rev - 
>> but given the availability of two excellent Open Source, well 
>> supported alternatives, I don't think it's anything to be concerned 
>> about; if anything, I prefer having the Open Source versions, since 
>> it let me build in a couple of personal variations to the library 
>> when I used it.
>
>
> I'd like to point out something in regards to libPop3 (as well as all 
> the other libraries I've written to date) - they are in the "Public 
> Domain" and not "Open Source" I do not like the restrictions and 
> licensing needed for "Open Source".
>
> I don't know what the licensing for Sarah's library is, but I'm sure 
> she has it marked on her website or in the download.
>
The terms are confusing and often used in different ways, but I believe 
one of the best explanations of the various terms is the one at 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html    (or at least, it agrees 
with the way I think about Open Source, etc.)

It shows "Public Domain" as one of the subsets of "Open Source" - and 
that's how I've always used it.

But I apologise if that confuses anyone, or disagrees with their 
preferred description.

-- 
Alex Tweedly       http://www.tweedly.net



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.14/131 - Release Date: 12/10/2005