Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
SV>No, if Debian accepts a special permission from UW to distribute modified
SV>binaries, they will never see the need to make pine free software.
This might be true, but I'm more interested in the opposite question: do you
seriously believe that Debian refusing Pine for that reason will actually
force UW to make it free? Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for
that to happen ;-)
SV>Perhaps Debian just cares more than others about what is allowed by
SV>licenses and what is not. This has happened several times in the
SV>past and should not be a surprise.
I have to take your word for it, because my talks with local Debian
developers and users centered more on the pine-is-crap-use-mutt kind of
logic than on proper legal opinion and examples of similar decisions. I
prefer Pine, so their answer is beside the point and, also, this kind of
reasoning doesn't translate to Debian caring more than others, not by a long
shot.
Andrea.
P.S.: yes, examples of similar cases are welcome, by private email to reduce
clutter on the list.
--
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
Reply to: