Re: PINE Debian Package
Hi,
>>"George" == George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org> writes:
George> 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 ...
George> No, it is the CHANGING of the interpretation of the license to
George> fit the current agenda (real or perceived ... I am not sure
George> which) that chaps my hips. The license is the same. Qmail
George> SPECIFICLY does not allow distribution of binaries. Pine does
George> not allow binary distribution of derivative works. I am
George> saying that the changes Debian makes do not consititute a
George> derivative work, they are simply configuration items.
The earlier interpretation was incorrect, and would have left
debian open for litigation. I recall Santiago posting here saying
that he did indeed talk to the U of Wa and they did not want modified
binaries spread (I do not have the details, but I trust Santiago).
So we made an mistake earlier. We have now corrected it. We do
not want to revert to an illegal act, especially that it is now no
longer in good faith, since we know about the licence.
Would you care to agree to indemnify Debian against all
lawsuits in the future? Can you legally do that anyway?
manoj
--
Flee at once, all is discovered.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: