Yes, your are correct. The .diff files would create an unauthorized derivative work.
Like you said, I think I'm OK for now. If or when I get a CEASE and DESIST notice from UW, I will take the page down. Until then, someone must want this stuff. NatePuri Certified Law Student & Debian GNU/Linux Monk McGeorge School of Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ompages.com On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Paul Nathan Puri wrote: > > > I understand that debian cannot distribute these packages in binary format > > as part of its distribution. I believe that this is because debian is a > > legal organization who's policy is not to distribute non-GPL software. > > Debian has no policy against non-GPL software. Apache is part of the > Debian distro, and it is not GPLed. Perl is not GPLed. There are many > standard debian packages that are not GPLed. > > > "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; > > (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns; > > (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or > > non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the > > packaged distribution." > > I don't see any mention of redistribution of binaries here. > > Read the following segment from the Pine license: > - --- > 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. > > If this software is modified for local use, please denote this on all > modified versions of the software by appending the letter "L" to the > current version number and by enumerating the changes in the release notes > and associated documentation. > - --- > > You can't re-distribute dirivative works. That's key because an official > Debian package would require a slightly modified binary in order to comply > with the Debian filesystem guidelines. You can modify it for LOCAL USE, > in which case you need to append L to the version number. Making > something available for download on the internet hardly constitues local > use. > > However, since your Pine package has not been patched, you're operating > within the license. I am just giving you the reasons why Debian can't > distribute it. George Bonser stated on this list that it is possible to > have the University of Washington approve a modified binary release, and > that could work for you, if you wanted to make your Pine binary comply > with the debian filesystem standards and still remain legal. But Debian > can't make that a part of the actual distribution because it violates the > Debian Free Software Guidelines. I don't remember why it was removed from > the non-free section, though a reason was given at the time. > > noah > > PGP public key available at > http://lynx.dac.neu.edu/home/httpd/n/nmeyerha/mail.html > or by 'finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > This message was composed in a 100% Microsoft free environment. > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: 2.6.2 > > iQCVAwUBNtSzC4dCcpBjGWoFAQGb0QP+PDL9kFIEymfJNNW/doI+kq5okIjO0QAp > VwnyvVRwsf0hX6qbfT+r6ROndhtnrneEVxaedjo7xRKPTnM8+6aFLjG0kN6Peqrl > rHG4P6VW7Ha2y8T6iaTPdP+fu7gnfg20XFXen1iXJQSdPS4H13VGQRq2aIs5zlZt > JViZrpVA+AY= > =Vdii > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null > >
