[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?

Andrea Borgia <borgia@students.cs.unibo.it> writes:

> Or, alternatively, how about seeking an agreement with UW (again, as
> suggested in the notices) ?

This has been tried many, many times.  Feel free to give it a shot

> 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.

Of course we are legally allowed to distribute unmodified pine.  But
Debian doesn't include just anything that we are legally allowed to
distribute, but only those things that are free software.  In the case
of Pine, it's not free because it prohibits the distribution of
modified versions.

Reply to: