Re: the perennial pine licensing problem
Michael Stone wrote:
> Am I missing something, or is the current pine license
> (http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html) ok for non-free?
I can try to get the ball rolling.
Okay for non-free pretty much only means okay to redistribute
modified binaries (I assume we have to modify it for Debian).
We can comply with this:
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.
I'm not certain about the following:
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.
The third case (c) doesn't apply for an ftp site, but CDROM
makers will care. Our ftp site is a `non-profit concern', but
what do they mean by `distributions'? I don't think they mean
Linux or software distribution, but rather the act of
distribution, or redistribution. It's unclear, but I think it's
okay.
Am I missing something?
--
Peter Galbraith, research scientist <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Maurice Lamontagne Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada
P.O. Box 1000, Mont-Joli Qc, G5H 3Z4 Canada. 418-775-0852 FAX: 775-0546
6623'rd GNU/Linux user at the Counter - http://counter.li.org/
Reply to: