This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Does the 10 mailbox limit of the Community edition violate the terms of the GNU GPL? I guess anybody could just change the source-code to give more mailboxes, but it still restricts the user and how s/he may use the software. --74.210.101.3 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not letting the user change the desktop background would be a restriction as well, but it doesn't mean that distros which don't ship a wallpaper applet are GPL violators. So long as there's no actual license which bans the use of extra mailboxes there's no violation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk09:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in GPL that stops people from restricting the use of a product in terms of design restrictions as long as there's no policy that restricts a user (for as far as I know, however, I am no lawyer) --SakJur (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the old GPL topic, the limitation on the community edition of ClarkConnect was easy to bypass and there was no prohibition in the license to prevent you from making such a change. The real pressing issue is whether this article should remain as an independent article or whether it should be merged. IMHO, it should probably stay separate because the ownership of Clarkconnect stayed with the entity Pointclark Networks while the next iteration of the technical developed product was renamed to ClearOS and is owned by ClearFoundation. ClearFoundation does not own, to the best of my knowledge, the rights to Clarkconnect. They did this for legal reasons and international commerce reasons. So in this regard, ClearOS is a fork of Clarkconnect in many regards even though the development team stayed in tact and was simply added onto. --David Loper—Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I don't believe it can fit the proper definition for a "fork" perhaps on paper for the lawyers it might but otherwise, no. Does clarkconnect continue development besides maintenance? Does ClarkConnect continue development on new versions, features, etc? Even clarkconnect forums are now moved to ccforums.clearfoundation.com. Does Wikipedia feature articles on "Old GM Chevy Suburban" and "New GM Chevy Suburban?" Also for those not aware David works for the "new clarkconnect company."99.153.162.173 (talk)
