Re: pine license
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> [was Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move]
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone
>> > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course,
>> > NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will "become" Debian soon
>> > anyway (and for all intents we ARE Debian - just not on their server), and
>> > they've already given Debian permission to distribute. For the rest of
>> > non-free, permission to distribute is not an issue, and not the reason
>> > they're in non-free to begin with.
>> The pine author would for one thing.
> Can we stop with that particular piece of FUD? The authors of Pine have
> no problems with third-party redistribution of of their software as long
> as the version number contains an L to show it is not the pristine UW
> version. We don't distribute it because we follow the letter of their
> license which unfortunately doesn't match their intentions and even more
> unfortunately they are not in a hurry to fix. But the authors of Pine
> don't mind at all. They even have a page of links to third party ports 
> for heavens sake!
>  http://www.washington.edu/pine/getpine/non-UW.html
Ok, I stand corrected.
The pine author doesn't care, he just mistakenly wrote he would.
Doesn't solve the legal problem for us or debian. And it is just one
of many packages.