Re: IMAPD license problem?
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:48PM -0700, Lori Stevens wrote:
> I'm afraid your source is incorrect, we have not threatened to sue the FSF
> for distributing modified copies of IMAPD.
Actually, it looks like I misinterpreted something that was told to me,
so it's my mistake.
[Turns out that that part of the discussion was about PINE, and I've
not yet tracked down the copy of the source in question, so I've not
been able to inspect the license on that version of PINE. For the
moment I'm treating this as a non-issue.]
> Now, let's move on to a more productive topic regarding the Debian
> distribution of UW's IMAPD.
> UW's intent has always been to allow others to modify the UW IMAPD for
> their own needs, or to redistribute the original version, without having
> to ask for permission. We do expect and appreciate folks to ask before
> re-distributing derivative works, but obtaining permission is not
> onerous. Many have asked and they've all received permission. We are
> happy and willing to work with Debian so that Debian may continue to
> distribute UW's IMAPD.
> First of all, by this message you have our permission to distribute a
> modified version of IMAPD.
Do you understand that "Debian" has no formal legal existence -- that
anyone can be a Debian user or distributor or repackager, and that by
granting permission to Debian you're essentially granting permission
> We confirm that we have given you permission to distribute a modified
> version of IMAPD on the condition that you assume all risks when you do
> so and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the University of
> Washington from any and all claims or damages that might arise through
> your activity related to a modified IMAPD.
"No warranty" is our typical warranty. No problem there.
> In order to reduce confusion and facilitate debugging, we request that
> locally modified versions, including those which are distributed, either
> be denoted by appending a letter to the current version number or that you
> in some way show that it is a derivative work in the version number.
It is our policy to clearly label our revisions. [We add a release number
suffix to everything we put out, and our binary packages always have a
".deb" suffix, and we distribute source code as "unmodified" sources
plus relevant patches. I put "unmodified" in quotes because we have
some simple standards about source directory names.]
It's my understanding that our repackagers either add their own
distinctive labelling or copy our naming convention verbatim.
> Thanks for your interest in continuing to distribute UW's IMAPD in the
> Debian distribution.
And, I'm sorry about the mistake about the FSF.