Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On 14-Jun-99, 07:48 (CDT), Adam Rogoyski <rogoyski@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> The copyright for Pine and Pico has been updated on June 2nd and seems
> less restrictive, http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html.
> Does it still fail the Debian Free Software guidelines?
| 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.
This might slip by, depending on the exactly what is meant by (c). It
seems to prevent the distribution of Pico with other commercial software,
so I think it fails DFSG 1.
| Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by license
| agreements for incorporated libraries from third parties, e.g. LDAP,
| GSSAPI.
I'm not sure what this means. I'm guessing that there are ways to
configure Pico to link to other libraries, which would then limit
distribution of Pico. We could avoid that by not using those options.
Steve
Reply to: