Re: Free Pine?
On 01-Sep-00, 02:50 (CDT), Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Actually, we did get an answer - from Lori (Lori's last name escapes my
> memory, but it was the person who sent the message you forwarded) - saying
> that what we are doing with imapd is not against its license and if it
> turned out that it actually was, we were being given permission to do so.
> Of course, if the latter were necessary, imapd would still be non-free
> according to our guidelines. The former appears to be the case in our
> opinion, in Lori's, and from what I gather, yours in other contexts.
I disagree with your last sentence; here's what Lori wrote:
> 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.
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they too
ask permission ("We do expect and appreciate..."). Non-free. If she had
written just "We appreciate..." I'd be comfortable putting it in free.
Steve Greenland <email@example.com>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)