Re: IMAPD license problem?
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Lori Stevens wrote:
> We confirm that we have given you permission to distribute a modified
> version of IMAPD on the condition that you assume all risks when you do
> so and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the University of
> Washington from any and all claims or damages that might arise through
> your activity related to a modified IMAPD.
> In order to reduce confusion and facilitate debugging, we request that
> locally modified versions, including those which are distributed, either
> be denoted by appending a letter to the current version number or that you
> in some way show that it is a derivative work in the version number.
Both of these requirements can be effectively enforced without requiring
people to get "permission" - just put it in a copyright license, in fact a
slightly modified BSD license would suit this just fine. By requiring
people to seek permission to redistribute, you are setting up a barrier
higher than people in the Debian community want to see with software -
they would to be able to modify and distribute *without* seeking prior
approval. That seems reasonable, no?