David Rankin wrote on Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 01:35:00PM -0500 : > Not true!, see beloe > > Pine has a commercial license. We are not allowed to distribute a > > modified version. > Mark Crispin wrote: > > The issue with the "restrictive" license agreement boils down to one major > > issue: if someone wishes to distribute a modified version of Pine, they > > have to ask UW for permission first. > > Put another way, UW claims control over what is distributed with the name > > "Pine". It's alright to distribute unmodified Pine; it's alright to > > distribute patches to modify Pine. But if you want to distribute a > > modified Pine, you have to ask first.
I chose my words incorrectly. The first sentence is wrong in your eyes and right in my eyes. The second sentence is only partially correct because we are able to distribute the modified version, but only if we ask. The next quoted section has a better stated position. Let me be more exact. Pine's license is not Free. If it was Free, they would not be able to put those restrictions on it. > > > > 3. I could not locate the pine package anywhere on the disks. > > > It's been removed because the University of Washington, its owners, > > > introduced a homebrewed licence which is more restrictive than GPL or > > > similar. This one is exactly correct (and what I should have said the first time). Blue skies... Todd --
msg57800/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
