Re: what about Pine's license?
Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> >
> > > [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt
> >
> > 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;
>
> This sounds like Debian and the ftp servers.
Doesn't matter. Those who get the software must have the same
rights as we do.
> > (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
>
> Pine doesn't want a company making money from Pine/Pico/Pilot...
This makes it (paradoxically) non-free.
> ? If Pine is non-free, then it is non-free.
Huh?
> Why does non-free == no modified binaries?
It's a separate issue. We don't have non-free _binaries_ like we
do for other non-free stuff because of _no modified binarie_.
But it would still be non-free even without that clause.
Peter
Reply to: