[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 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
/usr/share/common-licenses says

  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
  are met:

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:nnorman@incanus.net
  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 :)

Reply to: