Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> 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?
No, something which is distributed by every Debian mirror in the planet
may not be considered "local".
> Or, alternatively, how about seeking an agreement with UW (again, as
> suggested in the notices) ?
No, if Debian accepts a special permission from UW to distribute modified
binaries, they will never see the need to make pine free software.
> 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.
Perhaps Debian just cares more than others about what is allowed by
licenses and what is not. This has happened several times in the
past and should not be a surprise.