From: David D. Kilzer (ddkilzer@ti.com)
Date: Fri Feb 05 1999 - 10:48:28 CST
>Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> While I can understand your view, I really can't see how a single
>> person such as Kent can define what hypermail is and isn't (especially
>> when absent). The license under which Hypermail has been released allows
>> anyone of us to change and redistribute it, without changing name.
Tom von Alten <Tom_vonAlten@boi.hp.com> wrote:
>I think it's important that the name *not* be changed. There's no question
>that Kent's coordination was beneficial, and advanced the project
>considerably, but it did not give him a proprietary interest.
>
>But there's a long history that's being carried on here, and given that a
>non-beta v2 was never released, it's not clear what benefit would come from
>a new name.
I agree, we should keep the name.
We can always merge in Kent's changes when he has time to work on the
project once again. It's not like we're banning him from all future
development. :^)
Dave