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 out that it actually was, we were being given permission to do so. > Of course, if the latter were necessary, imapd would still be non-free > according to our guidelines. The former appears to be the case in our > opinion, in Lori's, and from what I gather, yours in other contexts.
I disagree with your last sentence; here's what Lori wrote: > UW's intent has always been to allow others to modify the UW IMAPD > for their own needs, or to redistribute the original version, > without having to ask for permission. We do expect and appreciate > folks to ask before re-distributing derivative works, but obtaining > permission is not onerous. Many have asked and they've all received > permission. We are happy and willing to work with Debian so that > Debian may continue to distribute UW's IMAPD. > > 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, unless they too ask permission ("We do expect and appreciate..."). Non-free. If she had written just "We appreciate..." I'd be comfortable putting it in free. Steve -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)