On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 11:45:25AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > Unfortunately, it turns out that the UWash lawyers were right about > > the way these clauses are understood by the courts; it sucks, but > > there it is. They didn't create the distinction, they just decided to > > use it. > > So the BSD license is non-free as written, and it's only the good graces > of the copyright holders that use it that keep us from getting sued?
I wondered about this too. However, the BSD license in /usr/share/common-licenses says Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: I'm no lawyer, but I think this can only be interpreted in one sane way. This is different than the UW license quoted earlier in the thread. (Pine 4.44 seems to have a different license; I don't think anything has changed WRT distribution by debian). -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Q: What's tiny and yellow and very, very, dangerous? A: A canary with the super-user password. PS I hate Pine so I have no vested interest here :)
