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

Re: ITP: pine (?)

Could anybody explain pine licence?

"Local modification of this release is permitted as follows, or by
mutual agreement: In order to reduce confusion and facilitate
debugging, we request that locally modified versions be denoted by
appending the letter "L" to the current version number, and that the
local changes be enumerated in the integral release notes and
associated documentation.

Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
(a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
(b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
(c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
    non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
    packaged distribution.

Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by license
agreements for incorporated libraries from third parties, e.g. LDAP,


"The above permissions are hereby granted, provided that the Pine and
Pico copyright and trademark notices appear in all copies and that
both the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation, and that the name of the University of
Washington not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
distribution of the software without specific, prior written
permission. This software is made available "as is", and



Piotr "Dexter" Roszatycki

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1999 11:52:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
To: Piotr Roszatycki <dexter@fnet.pl>
Cc: Debian Development Mailing List <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: ITP: pine (?)
Resent-Date: 2 Nov 1999 10:53:09 -0000
Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:

> It looks like the last licence of pine allows to redistribute
> binaries.

It looks not. No paragraph allow modified binaries to be distributed.

If we disagree, please let us discuss in debian-legal, an "ITP" is not
a good way to resolve this.


 "37adb109f8551bdc52a8d7402536f589" (a truly random sig)

Reply to: