Re: Looking at the pine license again
Scripsit "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar@debian.org>
> Local modification of this release is permitted as follows, or by
> mutual agreement: In order to reduce confusion and facilitate
> debugging, we request that locally modified versions be denoted by
> appending the letter "L" to the current version number, and that the
> local changes be enumerated in the integral release notes and
> associated documentation.
> [To meet these requirements it should be sufficient to call a hypothetical
> Debian package 4.43L and add the line
No - because they do not allow *distributing* such a "locally
modified" release.
> Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
> agreement:
> (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
> (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
> (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
> non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
> packaged distribution.
> [I guess this is the sticking point?
Another sticking point. A DFSG-free license must allow for-profit
redistribution. The "only free software" condition of prong (c) is
explicitly disallowed by DFSG#9.
> [This doesn't say that modifications must be made as patches only.
Nothing says that not-as-patches modification may be distributed at
all. In fact, the UW has told us directly and explicitly that they
must *not* be distributed. I suppose it's in the list archives
somewhere.
--
Henning Makholm "Vend dig ikke om! Det er et meget ubehageligt syn!"
Reply to: