Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:25AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Unfortunately, it turns out that the UWash lawyers were right about
> > the way these clauses are understood by the courts; it sucks, but
> > there it is. They didn't create the distinction, they just decided to
> > use it.
> So the BSD license is non-free as written, and it's only the good graces
> of the copyright holders that use it that keep us from getting sued?
I wondered about this too. However, the BSD license in
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
I'm no lawyer, but I think this can only be interpreted in one sane
way. This is different than the UW license quoted earlier in the thread.
(Pine 4.44 seems to have a different license; I don't think anything
has changed WRT distribution by debian).
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Q: What's tiny and yellow and very, very, dangerous?
A: A canary with the super-user password.
PS I hate Pine so I have no vested interest here :)