Re: what about Pine's license?
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jan 1999 theone@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> > <...> Pine is simpler to use,
> > > but it's a pity about the license.
> >
> > Go on, please.
>
> It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries.
That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so?
> 'nuff said
No.
Clearly it is not the case that Debian prohibits the distribution of
modified binaries of non-free software, simply because there are lots of
non-free source + diffs with binary .debs in the package tree.
Granted that Pine's legal.txt[1] does not explicitly give one permission
to distribute modified binaries; it also does not explicitly say that one
can not; it does however, explicitly request how modifications should be
handled, without reference to any particular distribution scheme.
(If you are having problems with that last line, then I respectfully
suggest you double check the meaning of the word "local"[2]. Well,
it is the only bit that I can see as being a potential problem.)
It doesn't appear that anybody is restricting the distribution of
"modified binaries".
later,
Bruce
[1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt
[2] as in "Local modification of this release is permitted..."
Reply to: