Bruce Sass wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > [1] ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/pine/docs/legal.txt > > > > Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by > > mutual agreement: > > > > (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns; > > This sounds like Debian and the ftp servers.
Doesn't matter. Those who get the software must have the same rights as we do. > > (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns; > > Pine doesn't want a company making money from Pine/Pico/Pilot... This makes it (paradoxically) non-free. > ? If Pine is non-free, then it is non-free. Huh? > Why does non-free == no modified binaries? It's a separate issue. We don't have non-free _binaries_ like we do for other non-free stuff because of _no modified binarie_. But it would still be non-free even without that clause. Peter
