Re: I have PINE .debs...
Yes, your are correct.
The .diff files would create an unauthorized derivative work.
Like you said, I think I'm OK for now.
If or when I get a CEASE and DESIST notice from UW, I will take the page
down. Until then, someone must want this stuff.
NatePuri
Certified Law Student
& Debian GNU/Linux Monk
McGeorge School of Law
publisher@ompages.com
http://ompages.com
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Paul Nathan Puri wrote:
>
> > I understand that debian cannot distribute these packages in binary format
> > as part of its distribution. I believe that this is because debian is a
> > legal organization who's policy is not to distribute non-GPL software.
>
> Debian has no policy against non-GPL software. Apache is part of the
> Debian distro, and it is not GPLed. Perl is not GPLed. There are many
> standard debian packages that are not GPLed.
>
> > "Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
> > agreement:
> > (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns;
> > (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns;
> > (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or
> > non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the
> > packaged distribution."
>
> I don't see any mention of redistribution of binaries here.
>
> Read the following segment from the Pine license:
> - ---
> 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.
>
> If this software is modified for local use, please denote this on all
> modified versions of the software by appending the letter "L" to the
> current version number and by enumerating the changes in the release notes
> and associated documentation.
> - ---
>
> You can't re-distribute dirivative works. That's key because an official
> Debian package would require a slightly modified binary in order to comply
> with the Debian filesystem guidelines. You can modify it for LOCAL USE,
> in which case you need to append L to the version number. Making
> something available for download on the internet hardly constitues local
> use.
>
> However, since your Pine package has not been patched, you're operating
> within the license. I am just giving you the reasons why Debian can't
> distribute it. George Bonser stated on this list that it is possible to
> have the University of Washington approve a modified binary release, and
> that could work for you, if you wanted to make your Pine binary comply
> with the debian filesystem standards and still remain legal. But Debian
> can't make that a part of the actual distribution because it violates the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines. I don't remember why it was removed from
> the non-free section, though a reason was given at the time.
>
> noah
>
> PGP public key available at
> http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/home/httpd/n/nmeyerha/mail.html
> or by 'finger -l frodo@ccs.neu.edu'
>
> This message was composed in a 100% Microsoft free environment.
>
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBNtSzC4dCcpBjGWoFAQGb0QP+PDL9kFIEymfJNNW/doI+kq5okIjO0QAp
> VwnyvVRwsf0hX6qbfT+r6ROndhtnrneEVxaedjo7xRKPTnM8+6aFLjG0kN6Peqrl
> rHG4P6VW7Ha2y8T6iaTPdP+fu7gnfg20XFXen1iXJQSdPS4H13VGQRq2aIs5zlZt
> JViZrpVA+AY=
> =Vdii
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
>
Reply to: