On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:50:59AM -0800, Joel Klecker wrote:
> No it's not, it's because binaries made from modified source are not
> distributable.
>
> >It might just be simpler for everybody to talk to UW about it. Life would
> >be much easier if they just BSD'd it or put it under Artistic (yuk) or
> >something..
>
> If UW *wanted* a free license, they would have kept the license they *had*
> years ago which was free. Instead they changed it to the evil non-free
> license *and* legally threatened anyone who tried to fork from the last
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> free pine. Does this sound like an organization that gives a damn about
^^^^^^^^^
> free software to you?
What was its primary licence ?
What kind of free licence make such situations possible ???
(for me it is not free even a little bit if author can change
his mind and take away your freedom)
