Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote:
: On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Nathan E Norman wrote:
: > I don't understand why following a license decreases user utility. It
: > may add work for the sysadmin ...
: No, it is the CHANGING of the interpretation of the license to fit the
: current agenda (real or perceived ... I am not sure which) that chaps my
: hips. The license is the same. Qmail SPECIFICLY does not allow
: distribution of binaries. Pine does not allow binary distribution of
: derivative works. I am saying that the changes Debian makes do not
: consititute a derivative work, they are simply configuration items.
Gosh, perhaps the license was not being interpreted correctly before?
I quote, from the file CPYRIGHT (found in the original source tarball)
Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey
the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of
Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which
can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution.
It doesn't say "You can distribute modified binaries if they make Pine
adhere to the FHS, make local users happy, or make Pine crash less
often". It says that you do _not_ have the "right to distribute
derivative works", but "unrestricted distribution of patch files" is ok.
It does _not_ say you can apply said patches and distribute the result
(a derivative work).
MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104
finger firstname.lastname@example.org for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org