Barak Pearlmutter wrote:
> With a little help, I've composed a draft DFSG FAQ. It meant as an
> introduction to issues discussed on debian-legal, with some general
> background material to help bring naive readers up from ground zero.
>
> http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
I read:
For a concrete example, the PINE mail reader has a license which
might normally be interpreted as free, but the copyright holder
told us they wished to interpret it in a somewhat counterintuitive
but nonetheless plausible way, which made it non-free.
This would be only accurate if applied to pine 3.91, which had a
BSD-like license. The way UW interpret pine 3.91 license, it's non-free,
because you can't "modify and then redistribute".
After pine 3.91, UW changed the license to make clear that they do not
want modified binaries to be distributed without their explicit permission.
