Re: IMAPD license problem

[Richard Stallman <rms@santafe.edu>]

    Here's a copy of the license:

    # Copyright 1998 by the University of Washington
    #
    #  Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
    # documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided

Most people interpret this license wording as giving permission to
distribute modified versions.  That is what I think they mean.

But the University of Washington says these words do not give us
permission to do that.  They are so adamant about this that they
actually threatened to *sue* the FSF, if we released a modified
version of PINE (we started from a PINE version which was released
under the exact same license wording).

    If some other license applies to some or all of IMAPD then we need to
    know about it.

I don't think any other license is involved; I believe the only
license is the one you sent me.  The question is what that license
*means*.

If we are prepared to have a lawsuit with the U of W, our lawyer
thinks we would probably win, probably get a court to agree that this
license gives permission to distribute modified versions.  But unless
we actually have the suit, and get that favorable ruling, we cannot
treat that as undisputed fact.

If we tell people we think this U of W software is free, without
warning them that U of W says it isn't, we could be leading the users
into a legal dispute.  That is not a good way to treat the users.

    > But the University of Washington explicitly says they don't believe it
    > means this.  In effect, we cannot consider IMAPD as free software
    > unless we are willing to dare them to sue us.

    Specifically, Lori Stevens has said this.  It's not clear whether she's
    even read the license.

I believe she is the boss of the maintainer of IMAPD.  So I expect she
has read the license and is making an authoritative statement.  If you
would like to double-check some of these points, the best way is to
ask her.