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

Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?

Scripsit Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>

> I think I was being reminded of the MIT/X11 license instead:

>     Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
>     copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
>     "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
>     without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
>     distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
>     permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
>     the following conditions:

> Well, Thomas?  How about this one?

I am not him, but notice that the list of rights is an "and/or" list,
rather than an "and" list as in the original Pine license.
That seems to close the interpretational loophole that UW wiggled out
of when they decided not to be free after all.

Henning Makholm          "Hører I. Kald dem sammen. Så mange som overhovedet
                    muligt. Jeg siger jer det her er ikke bare stort. Det er
             Stortstortstort. Det er allerhelvedes stort. Det er historiEN."

Reply to: