Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:25AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it turns out that the UWash lawyers were right about
> > the way these clauses are understood by the courts; it sucks, but
> > there it is. They didn't create the distinction, they just decided to
> > use it.
>
> So the BSD license is non-free as written, and it's only the good graces
> of the copyright holders that use it that keep us from getting sued?
I wondered about this too. However, the BSD license in
/usr/share/common-licenses says
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
I'm no lawyer, but I think this can only be interpreted in one sane
way. This is different than the UW license quoted earlier in the thread.
(Pine 4.44 seems to have a different license; I don't think anything
has changed WRT distribution by debian).
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
Q: What's tiny and yellow and very, very, dangerous?
A: A canary with the super-user password.
PS I hate Pine so I have no vested interest here :)
Reply to: