Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
SV>License does not explicitly allow to distribute "modified binaries", i.e.
SV>binaries produced from modified source.
How about denoting the release with "-L", as suggested in the legal notices
themselves? Wouldn't that give us enough leeway to redistribute the binary?
Or, alternatively, how about seeking an agreement with UW (again, as
suggested in the notices) ?
SV>[ This has been discussed many times, please read the archives ].
I did and I did not, and still do not, understand why, say, RedHat can
distribute pine in binary form and Debian cannot. Or anyone making prebuilt
debs available, for that matter.
Sorry for not being a lawyer, not everyone is perfect ;-)
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