Re: pine in other distributions?
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine,
> No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement
> about distributing such modified versions. And "Redistribution of this
> release is permitted as follows [...]" of course only covers "this
> release" as provided from U. of Washington.
As it stands now, we don't even distribute a binary Pine at all, if
I'm not all incorrect, only the sources for (the outdated) Pine 3.96.
Furthermore, there is NO clause explicitly forbidding distribution of
modified versions; the only clause that mentions patches binaries is the
one concerning Local modification.
I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks
for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe
them to be pretty reasonable.
> > We'll still have to keep it in the non-free area, of course, as it's a
> > BSD-style license, but...
> When did the BSD license change to non-free? From the Debian Policy
> section 2.1.1.:
> Example Licenses
> The ``GPL,'' ``BSD,'' and ``Artistic'' licenses are examples of
> licenses that we consider _free_.
Ok... Sorry, I guess that was personal disliking of the BSD-license
biasing my statement. :^/
// David Weinehall <email@example.com> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </