[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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I'm not all incorrect, only the sources for (the outdated) Pine 3.96.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
  _                                                                 _ 
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Project MCA Linux hacker        //  Dance across the winter sky // 
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </ 

Reply to: