cwRsync got killed...

Joachim Otahal (privat) Jou at
Thu Mar 8 14:15:08 MST 2012

brian at schrieb:
> Not that I have any say but I agree on both counts.
> That is, I think it's ok for the 4.2.0 source not to be provided by them now, if they are not supplying the 4.2.0 binaries now, but at least at the time they were providing 4.2.0 binaries under gpl, then at that time at least they were obligated to make the matching source available. I don't know how long those obligations last after the fact. I can't imagine that you are obligated for example to provide a web host and all that that implies for the rest of your life just because you once wrote a hello world under gpl.

Well, I don't agree on them not providing their last version.
Bus since we have version 4.20 of both in binary, client and server (at 
least I have them, thx to the donator) aaand their nsis script, I'd say 
it is not worth going the full way. It was fine as long as they got 
provided, it was a nice service, and it shouldn't be that difficult to 
create a package on my own, as soon as I get my ass up 
*g*^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d^d have time.


More information about the rsync mailing list