DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
Way back when I was using RedHat, when I asked why pine was not included in
Debian (at least in non-free), local debian developers used to answer me
with "because it is not free".
I understand that Debian has quite a stringent definition of what free is,
but I had a look at the DFSG and at pine's legal notices and I fail to see
exactly where the problem lies.
One part of pine's license caught my attention and I quote:
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
IANAL, but it would appear to me that point A applies to Debian, point B to
RedHat's freely downloadable distribution and C to RedHat's boxed set, for
My take on this is that RedHat, just to use an example of commercial
distribution I know well, is even more constrained than Debian is when
redistributing free software, since, well, they do make money out of it and
Debian does not.
So, from a legal standpoint, where is the problem?
TIA for your help,
Mä muistan sen kirkkaan päivän, sen kesän ja sen valon häivän
Heinä haisi, puut tuoksui, linnut lauloi vaan
Ja Lada ajaa kylän raitilla, Lada ajaa ja stereot soittaa