On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:20:24 -0500 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] > Francesco, I read the Linux Today story which you linked, and don't > see how it's relevant. It's another case where a license is interpreted by upstream in an awkward way, thus making the work non-free. > Which terms of this license correspond to the > Pine terms, None, AFAIK. > or are non-DFSG free? Requiring that modifications are sent back to the original author is a non-free requirement. The license text does not seem to include such a non-free restriction, but upstream claims that the restriction is "clearly" present. I think this situation is similar to the Pine one, that's why I pointed that Linux Today story out... I hope I clarified. Usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp3TqCFuFVbC.pgp
Description: PGP signature