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

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


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: