Re: pine license
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
> > retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
> > is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
> I don't think the issue at that time was that they revoked the prior
> license, but that we generally try and cooperate with the providers
> of software. If someone doesn't want us working with them, why
> should we?
I fully agree that we should cooperate with what copyright holders want,
in general. What I remember, however, was that Pine was under a clearly
Free license, and UW played word lawyer ("modify and distribute", was
it?) to minimize its freeness well after it was released and in wide use.
I'm just saying that we should treat anyone with such a history with extreme
scrutiny and skepticism, giving them no benefit of the doubt; they've lost