On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote: : On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Nathan E Norman wrote: : : > I don't understand why following a license decreases user utility. It : > may add work for the sysadmin ... : : No, it is the CHANGING of the interpretation of the license to fit the : current agenda (real or perceived ... I am not sure which) that chaps my : hips. The license is the same. Qmail SPECIFICLY does not allow : distribution of binaries. Pine does not allow binary distribution of : derivative works. I am saying that the changes Debian makes do not : consititute a derivative work, they are simply configuration items.
Gosh, perhaps the license was not being interpreted correctly before? I quote, from the file CPYRIGHT (found in the original source tarball) Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution. It doesn't say "You can distribute modified binaries if they make Pine adhere to the FHS, make local users happy, or make Pine crash less often". It says that you do _not_ have the "right to distribute derivative works", but "unrestricted distribution of patch files" is ok. It does _not_ say you can apply said patches and distribute the result (a derivative work). -- Nathan Norman MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104 mailto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.midco.net finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
