One crucial question that you did not ask was this one:
Can Debian distribute a modified version of IMAPD *and give everyone
permission to distribute their own secondary modified versions of
the Debian version*?
"Yes" would mean that people who get the Debian version would be
allowed to red
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 06:22:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There's no problem with obtaining special permission to distribute a program
> as long as it goes in non-free. It's just a little more onerous on the
> maintainer.
Yeah, but I'm obviously lobbying for something that's good enough for
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > > What about the companies building their own distros on top of Debian?
> > > Do they need to obtain permission from UW if they modify the IMAPD
> > > package?
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Did you even bother read
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > What about the companies building their own distros on top of Debian?
> > Do they need to obtain permission from UW if they modify the IMAPD
> > package?
>
> Did you even bother reading
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:48PM -0700, Lori Stevens wrote:
> > First of all, by this message you have our permission to distribute a
> > modified version of IMAPD.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:36:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> This part is a problem; I think it may implicitly fail clause 8
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Of course, if the requirements are so pervasive that they can't be
> > satisfied by personal action on the part of the package maintainer,
> > we can just drop the package. But I do not see, at the moment, that
> > these requirements can't be satisfied b
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:36:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think UW is really quite close to an unambiguous free software license
> here; if the policy of executing licenses on a case-by-case basis with
> redistributors were lifted, I think the problem would be solved.
> Otherwise, I thi
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:48PM -0700, Lori Stevens wrote:
> First of all, by this message you have our permission to distribute a
> modified version of IMAPD.
This part is a problem; I think it may implicitly fail clause 8 of the
Debian Free Software Guidelines.
License Must Not Be Specific
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:48:34PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Under a provision of contract law valid at least within the US, that's not
> > quite true. If the clause is ambiguous, any reasonable meaning you as
> > licensee may derive (of course a court will determine whether or not the
> >
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 09:58:49PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> What about the companies building their own distros on top of Debian?
> Do they need to obtain permission from UW if they modify the IMAPD
> package?
Not according to the copyright.
I've asked Lori Stevens a related question but
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> Of course, if the requirements are so pervasive that they can't be
> satisfied by personal action on the part of the package maintainer,
> we can just drop the package. But I do not see, at the moment, that
> these requirements can't be satisfied by the pa
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 07:29:43PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Both of these requirements can be effectively enforced without
> requiring people to get "permission" - just put it in a copyright
> license, in fact a slightly modified BSD license would suit this just
> fine. By requiring people
On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:48PM -0700, Lori Stevens wrote:
> I'm afraid your source is incorrect, we have not threatened to sue the FSF
> for distributing modified copies of IMAPD.
Actually, it looks like I misinterpreted something that was told to me,
so it's my mistake.
[Turns out that that
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Lori Stevens wrote:
> We confirm that we have given you permission to distribute a modified
> version of IMAPD on the condition that you assume all risks when you do
> so and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the University of
> Washington from any and all claims or
Raul,
I'm afraid your source is incorrect, we have not threatened to sue the FSF
for distributing modified copies of IMAPD. Now, let's move on to a more
productive topic regarding the Debian distribution of UW's IMAPD.
UW's intent has always been to allow others to modify the UW IMAPD for
their o
On Mon, Aug 21, 2000 at 04:48:34PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> I'm not intimately familiary with US law, but does that principle
> really apply when the licencee is in bad faith (as would clearly
> be the case here - given that we *know* how UW interprets their
> license, we cannot just decide
Scripsit Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Under a provision of contract law valid at least within the US, that's not
> quite true. If the clause is ambiguous, any reasonable meaning you as
> licensee may derive (of course a court will determine whether or not the
> language COULD be construed
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:06:27PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> However, since the language of this license appears to have been borrowed
> from the original MIT/X Consortium license, perhaps the people who wrote
> it
> could be tracked down to offer their opinion.
>
> We got lots
On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
) Can you email me a copy of the original pine source, which had this
) license on it, so I can see for myself what I'm talking about?
)
) Sorry, I cannot find that myself.
It's on ftp.yggdrasil.com somewhere, but I can't get in to it right no
Can you email me a copy of the original pine source, which had this
license on it, so I can see for myself what I'm talking about?
Sorry, I cannot find that myself.
On Thu, Aug 17, 2000 at 04:32:16AM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> I've been told that you, or someone working with you, has threatened to
> sue the FSF (Free Software Foundation) for distributing modified copies
> of IMAPD.
>
> I should point out that what I told you was not this. I
I've been told that you, or someone working with you, has threatened to
sue the FSF (Free Software Foundation) for distributing modified copies
of IMAPD.
I should point out that what I told you was not this. I said that the
U of W threatened to sue us if we distributed a modified vers
However, since the language of this license appears to have been borrowed
from the original MIT/X Consortium license, perhaps the people who wrote it
could be tracked down to offer their opinion.
We got lots of people on record saying they believe this license means
what we always thou
On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 03:09:14AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I agree. Courier IMAPD claims to be GPL'ed, maybe Debian can just dump the
> UWash IMAPD until they pull their heads out?
Courier IMAPD only supports Maildirs, not traditional mailbox format.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTE
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 10:07:56PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Here's a copy of the license:
>
> # Copyright 1998 by the University of Washington
> #
> # Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> # documentation for any purpose and without fe
Hi,
I've been told that you, or someone working with you, has threatened to
sue the FSF (Free Software Foundation) for distributing modified copies
of IMAPD. I believe the IMAPD copyright contains the following text:
# Date: 7 December 1989
# Last Edited: 9 January 1998
#
# Copyright 19
Here's a copy of the license:
# Copyright 1998 by the University of Washington
#
# Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
# documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
Most people interpret this license wording as g
On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 05:16:29PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
> IMAPD is included in main because it has a license which people
> usually interpret as giving permission to distribute modified
> versions.
Here's a copy of the license:
# Copyright 1998 by the University of Washington
#
# Permi
IMAPD is included in main because it has a license which people
usually interpret as giving permission to distribute modified
versions.
But the University of Washington explicitly says they don't believe it
means this. In effect, we cannot consider IMAPD as free software
unless we are willing to
29 matches
Mail list logo
