On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote: > > > Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine, > > No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement > about distributing such modified versions. And "Redistribution of this > release is permitted as follows [...]" of course only covers "this > release" as provided from U. of Washington.
As it stands now, we don't even distribute a binary Pine at all, if I'm not all incorrect, only the sources for (the outdated) Pine 3.96. Furthermore, there is NO clause explicitly forbidding distribution of modified versions; the only clause that mentions patches binaries is the one concerning Local modification. I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe them to be pretty reasonable. > > We'll still have to keep it in the non-free area, of course, as it's a > > BSD-style license, but... > > When did the BSD license change to non-free? From the Debian Policy > section 2.1.1.: > > Example Licenses > The ``GPL,'' ``BSD,'' and ``Artistic'' licenses are examples of > licenses that we consider _free_. Ok... Sorry, I guess that was personal disliking of the BSD-license biasing my statement. :^/ /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
