Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I do agree that we should avoid upgrading to versions he's provided which >> are accompanied by statements about copyright which conflict with the GPL. >> >> But I don't see any valid reason for pulling prior versions out of main. > > I see this as a similar circumstance to Pine. UW had very clearly > given a free license, then switched to a loopy interpretation where we > didn't have a license to distribute modified versions. So it got > pulled from main. They changed their license for future versions -- > sure, they called it a clarification, but it was a pretty big change. > But Debian doesn't distribute that old pine, because -- even when the > copyright holder has gone insane -- it's polite to accede to their > wishes. > > The same action is appropriate here.
There's a slight difference, if I am not mistaken. UW did not change the license, and then claim that the new license would apply to copies of old versions of the software received under the old license. What they did was to clarify their interpretation of the license, which although highly unusual was not self-contradicting. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED]
