Re: IMAPD license problem?
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:48PM -0700, Lori Stevens wrote:
> > First of all, by this message you have our permission to distribute a
> > modified version of IMAPD.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:36:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> This part is a problem; I think it may implicitly fail clause 8 of the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines.
That message was not a copyright notice, so the DFSG isn't really an
issue. I believe that message was a "the developers have no problems
with you" sort of permission.
If she'd said that we *shouldn't* distribute, that would be a problem.
But what she said is that we *could*. And, unlike KDE, the copyright
isn't a problem.
I've already asked her to confirm that she means what she seems to
have said (that they have no problems with Debian distributing IMAPD),
and I kinda wish that people would stop agonizing about being granted
explicit permission to distribute in a case where we already have legal
permission to distribute.
Remember: the reason I asked in the first place was that RMS was concerned
that UW might have issues that weren't reflected in the copyright. Given
my original question, it's perfectly reasonable for her to grant redundant
permission for Debian to go ahead with the distribution of IMAPD.
I do hope these random "this is not ok" messages being sent to Lori
don't annoy them into doing something unpleasant with future releases.