I don't either--but that is not the point. The point is that the U of
W has actually threatened to sue the FSF for distributing a modified
version of a program that was released under the same words.
Personally, I'm still in the process of confirming this.
I hope that the U of
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they
too ask permission (We do expect and appreciate...). Non-free. If
There's no legal difference between Debian and people who recieve
it from us. [Legally, there's no such entity as Debian.]
Nor is there a difference from the viewpoint of our social contract.
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:35:49AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
Then why do we have DSFG #8
Scripsit Peter S Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Then why do we have DSFG #8 `License Must Not Be Specific to Debian'
if there is no Debian?
There *is* a Debian. But it's not a legal *person*, it's a *work*.
It is possible to write up a license that says, for example, that
copies of program X may
Then it must also be true that one cannot copy and then distribute, or
distribute and then copy. Have you attempted to challenge them on this
point? Do they have English professors at UWash, or just semioticians?
I never thought of this argument. It could be a good point to raise
Their position was that the words permission to copy, distribute and
modify do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
modify the software, but you can't modify it and then distribute the
Their position was that the words permission to copy, distribute and
modify do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
modify the software, but you can't modify it and then distribute the
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
First of all, by this message you have our permission to distribute a
modified version of IMAPD.
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
version, but that people who recieve it from us do not,
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 07:47:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
First of all, by this message you have our permission to distribute a
modified version of IMAPD.
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
That to me says Debian has permission to re-distribute our modified
version, but that people who recieve it from us do not, unless they
too ask permission (We do expect and appreciate...). Non-free. If
she had written just We
Richard,
I am comfortable speaking for the group at large when I say we appreciate
your advice and input on this matter. I myself appreciate the ends you're
trying to accomplish here. Nevertheless, the methods you're using to go
about this cause me to question whether or not your means justify
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:46:40PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
Their position was that the words permission to copy, distribute and
modify do not grant permission to distribute a modified version. In
other words, they say you can distribute the software, and you can
modify the software,
* Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000831 20:47]:
If Debian decides to reject IMAPD and tells the U of W so,
that will put some pressure on them to clarify the license.
Otherwise they may prefer to leave it
unclear in order to to have it both ways.
I don't see why Debian (or GNU, or Linux)
I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright is being
violated, when modified versions are distributed.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:46:40PM -0600, Richard Stallman wrote:
Their position was that
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, Sven Guckes wrote:
I don't see why Debian (or GNU, or Linux)
bothers with the IMAPD of UofW so much at all.
Aren't there quite some replacements by now?
Nope. Not that are free software and/or full-featured. Yet we're up to
our armpits in crappy POP3 servers with more
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 03:39:05PM +0200, Sven Guckes wrote:
I don't see why Debian (or GNU, or Linux) bothers with the IMAPD of
UofW so much at all. Aren't there quite some replacements by now?
[1] The copyright appears to meet our standards (DFSG).
[2] The only alternative imap daemon
On Fri, Sep 01, 2000 at 11:57:50AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright is being
violated, when modified versions are distributed.
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at
On 01-Sep-00, 02:50 (CDT), Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, we did get an answer - from Lori (Lori's last name escapes my
memory, but it was the person who sent the message you forwarded) - saying
that what we are doing with imapd is not against its license and if it
turned
For your amusement:
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~sanvila/mana
If upstream maintainers tell me this is alive, I'll upload it
(for project/experimental first).
Thanks.
I've an outstanding, unanswered question which I've sent to UW in a
related context (IMAPD): what specific clause of the copyright is being
violated, when modified versions are distributed.
Their position was that the words permission to copy, distribute and
modify do not grant
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 05:56:28PM +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
http://home.sol.no/~egilk/mana.html
I was curious to see it, but I can't download. Ftp server does not allow
anonymous connection...
--
Christian Surchi | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | www.debian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:03:44PM +0200, Christian Surchi wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 05:56:28PM +0300, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
http://home.sol.no/~egilk/mana.html
I was curious to see it, but I can't download. Ftp server does not allow
anonymous connection...
I found a copy at
* Chris Allegretta
| I found a copy at ftp://ftp.kvaleberg.com/pub/mana-4.0beta.tar.gz, I
| guess it's a mirror. A whole lot of warnings when trying to compile it,
| but it looks interesting.
Actually, I think it's the official site. The official homepage for
Mana is:
* Jimmy O'Regan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [000829 22:40]:
) But are there any features that
) mutt and slrn do not offer yet?
How about it's pine ;)
No further questions. ;-)
Problem is though, the discussion about the IMAPD license
started with rms mentioning that the FSF had tried to
resurrect
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:
Package: ftp.debian.org
The current version of pine is in non-free because the copyright
is not clear. We really should talk to the maintainers - perhaps
we can get permission to distribute the package as part of the
distribution? (FYI,
Dale Scheetz wrote:
The copyright is quite clear. You can not distribute this package for a
fee without first getting permission from the pine developers. According
to our policy this requires it go into non-free.
Now I noticed that the copyright has changed, the new one (same in
version 3.94
On Thu, 29 Aug 1996, Marek Michalkiewicz wrote:
The current version of pine is in non-free because the copyright
is not clear.
The onus rests on the pine maintainer, not me, so I'm reassigning this
to pine.
Guy
I rarely use pine myself (usually only when I have to read some
MIME-encrypted mail :-), but I know it's quite popular. It would
be a pity if we can't ship a MIME-aware mailer with the standard
distribution.
How odd...
I seem to have a /usr/bin/exmh, and exmh isn't in my /usr/local/bin. I
Package: ftp.debian.org
The current version of pine is in non-free because the copyright
is not clear. We really should talk to the maintainers - perhaps
we can get permission to distribute the package as part of the
distribution? (FYI, it's in Red Hat, and those guys are quite
careful about
29 matches
Mail list logo
