[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, Nov 10, 2002 at 04:41:04PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Andrea Borgia wrote:
> > Does anyone know of some free software that walks like Pine, talks like Pine
> > and looks like Pine but in fact is not Pine? (something like nano instead of
> > pico, mutt-fans please hands off the keyboard)
> 
> GNU mana, but it's a dead project (UW was going to sue the FSF for it).

That's outrageous.  UWash was going to sue the FSF for infringment of an
BSD-style license when it's plainly obvious that no infringement was
taking place?

Oh, I remember this.  The sophists at UWash claim that:

"Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose and without fee to the University of
Washington is hereby granted,"

does not mean that you can modify and then distribute.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200009/msg00001.html

It is this sort of stupidity that degrades the legal profession.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |      Intellectual property is neither
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      intellectual nor property.
branden@debian.org                 |      Discuss.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |      -- Linda Richman

Attachment: pgpodfizDqCXw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: