Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 at 02:29, Chris Lawrence wrote about Re: Editor and...: That and the local modification business is a bit goofy; perhaps they should consider a you modify it, you change the name policy (i.e. you can't call a modified Pine UW Pine or UW PC/Pine). That would at least edge it closer to DFSG-freeness (and would certainly let binaries into non-free). One interesting idea I had (and while I'm a law student, I haven't spent more than two or three minutes on the updated Pine license) is that it might allow modified source to be distributed, where all that needs to be done (and this could be part of postinstall or whatever) is to compile it. Thus, we're not distributing modified binaries but modified source and compiling locally (and automatically). -- Brock Rozen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director of Technical Services (410) 602-1350 Project Genesis http://www.torah.org/
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [1 text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)] /* * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal */ On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 14-Jun-99, 07:48 (CDT), Adam Rogoyski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I thought that at first, however the above appear to be OR'd, not AND'd. In that case (a) and (b) apply to our ftp sites, (c) seems to apply to anybody's distribution of Debian on cdrom. But I want to sell a CD with Debian and Adabas on it. So It's not C anymore and its neigther a or b. With Debian I'm allowed to do that, with pico not. They could have said it much more nicely, however. You can't sell pine (or pico, pilot) themselves, but you can sell a CD containing a bunch of stuff in addition to pine. probably would have been nice and clear, but for some reason clarity and software licenses do not go hand-in-hand. How much is a reasonable amount for a distribution containing just pico in some format? 1Million $? If I want to offer such, it should be my problem that nobody buys it. Theres no point in forbidding it. May the Source be with you. Goswin
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 05:38:27PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: I thought that at first, however the above appear to be OR'd, not AND'd. In that case (a) and (b) apply to our ftp sites, (c) seems to apply to anybody's distribution of Debian on cdrom. The problem I have is not ANDing a, b, and c, but the phrase collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or non-proprietary software. This would seem to disallow distribution of pico on a CD containing a commercial, proprietary program (for example, with the forthcoming Corel distribution). Doesn't that violate the DFSG? Yes, I believe it does actually. *sigh* It's better though. -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - SilverStr media ethics is an oxymoron, much like Jumbo Shrimp and Microsoft Works. MonkAway not to mention NT Security pgp5EWqVScJGW.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On Jun 15, Brock Rozen wrote: To clear up any confusion, the Pine (as such, pico; I believe) license has changed and that might make it eligible to be taken out of non-free. A number of problems have been discussed on -legal relative to it; most notably, that you can put it on a CD-ROM but not a Jaz disc (for example), and you can't put it with commercial software. That and the local modification business is a bit goofy; perhaps they should consider a you modify it, you change the name policy (i.e. you can't call a modified Pine UW Pine or UW PC/Pine). That would at least edge it closer to DFSG-freeness (and would certainly let binaries into non-free). Chris -- = |Chris Lawrence| Visit my home page!| | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ | | || |Amiga A4000 604e/233Mhz | Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: | | with Linux/APUS 2.2.3| * http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ * | =
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
David Starner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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? Definetly. Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, where as follows is not pretty much anything is not DFSG. I'm not sure I can parse your last sentence, but I don't think the license is DFSG-compliant yet: | 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 does not allow, say, selling a linux distribution including pine on disks (I know of at least one vendor who sells debian stored on IDE hard disks instead of CD-rom sets, which they should be allowed to be continued). -- Henning Makholm
RE: Editor and sensible-editor
When I started using Debian, I was also a little startled at not having pico. Then I learned about joe (which provides a pico emulation via the command 'jpico'), and all was happy in the universe. It would be nice if joe could be a main editor. -Original Message- From: David Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 7:55 AM To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org; debian-legal@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Editor and sensible-editor At 07:48 AM 6/14/99 -0500, Adam Rogoyski wrote: On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Joseph Carter wrote: Not even. pico CANNOT be packaged for Debian! The best that can be done is offer the source and let you build it yourself. To be blunt: Tough. Convince UW to make pico free software and get it into main, then convince people that it needs to be installed as part of the base system. Then we can talk about adding it as a panic option. 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? Definetly. Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, where as follows is not pretty much anything is not DFSG. It's not clear to me whether Debian can distribute modified binaries, though, which is one of the big questions. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] (alternately [EMAIL PROTECTED]) I would weep, but my tears have been stolen; I would shout, but my voice has been taken. Thus, I write. - Tragic Poet -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
/* * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal */ On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: On 14-Jun-99, 07:48 (CDT), Adam Rogoyski [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. I thought that at first, however the above appear to be OR'd, not AND'd. In that case (a) and (b) apply to our ftp sites, (c) seems to apply to anybody's distribution of Debian on cdrom. They could have said it much more nicely, however. You can't sell pine (or pico, pilot) themselves, but you can sell a CD containing a bunch of stuff in addition to pine. probably would have been nice and clear, but for some reason clarity and software licenses do not go hand-in-hand. | 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. BenC says LDAP is BSDish, so that's not an issue. I have no clue offhand what GSSAPI is offhand. I'm concerned about whether or not L binaries may be distributed but it SEEMS like one can do so. This might put pine in main which would admittedly be very good. Does it mean I'd use it over mutt? Lot on your knife! -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]Debian GNU/Linux developer PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First! - Knghtbrd The currency collectors are offline. I'm rerouting though the secondary couplings. If we re-align the phase manifold we should be able to use the plasma inductor matrix to manually launch a new cheesy spinoff series. * ShadwDrgn sighs Phase you leave my manifolds alone Phase ! pgpBXnuN4zLCw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Editor and sensible-editor
On 14-Jun-99, 15:14 (CDT), Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /* * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal */ posted to -legal only --sg :-) On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: | 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. I thought that at first, however the above appear to be OR'd, not AND'd. In that case (a) and (b) apply to our ftp sites, (c) seems to apply to anybody's distribution of Debian on cdrom. The problem I have is not ANDing a, b, and c, but the phrase collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or non-proprietary software. This would seem to disallow distribution of pico on a CD containing a commercial, proprietary program (for example, with the forthcoming Corel distribution). Doesn't that violate the DFSG? Steve
