Bug#242281: Problem with mush's license
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004, Göran Weinholt wrote:
> I'd like for you to decipher the following license, since I believe
> that we are currently violating it:
> Mush is copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 by Dan Heller.
> All Rights Reserved. This software is not in the public domain.
> Redistribution of the unmodified source code is permitted as long as all
> copyright notices remain intact and all other identifying notices remain
> in the code and in the binary. This includes message headers on outgoing
> mail and the startup message. Future releases may extract the release
> version from the message headers of mush-originated messages to aid in
> implementing features and providing backwards compatibility with previous
> versions. Modification of the source for personal use is permitted.
> Modifications sent to the authors are humbly accepted and it is their
> prerogative to make the mods official. Only the "official" sources may be
> redistributed and no sale of the code or any part thereof is permitted
> without written consent from the authors. Further, no part of the code
> may be used in any other product, free or otherwise, without consent from
> the authors. Distribution of sources containing adaptations of the SunView
> interface to XView or to any X11-based interface is expressly prohibited.
> MUSH IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY. AUTHORS HEREBY DISCLAIM
> ALL WARRANTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
> OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> Mush is currently in non-free and the source code is modified quite
> extensively (the .diff.gz is 131K). Are we allowed to distribute the
> modified sources in this manner, and binaries built from them?
There sure doesn't seem to be any permision to distribute binaries in
this License, nor is there any permision to distribute binaries that
are modified (as the diff.gz does.)
At best, we would only be able to distribute the source and a patch
file for compilation by users. However, the fact that "no part of the
code may be used in any other product, free or otherwise" may even
preclude us from distributing it at all. [I'd argue that it definetly
precludes vendors from including this package on a non-free disc, but
I haven't made up my mind yet for the archive itself.]
If others agree, this bug should be reassigned to ftp-master
requesting removal of the binary packages, and possibly the source
packages as well.
"For those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none is possible."