Re: Problem with mush's license
@ 05/04/2004 20:30 : wrote Henning Makholm : Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified sources. If nothing is said about it, then it is not allowed. I agree with Don Armstrong that the binary packages must be removed from the archive. Completely agreed. This is undistributable. -- br,M
Problem with mush's license
Hi, I'd like for you to decipher the following license, since I believe that we are currently violating it: Mush is copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 by Dan Heller. All Rights Reserved. This software is not in the public domain. Redistribution of the unmodified source code is permitted as long as all copyright notices remain intact and all other identifying notices remain in the code and in the binary. This includes message headers on outgoing mail and the startup message. Future releases may extract the release version from the message headers of mush-originated messages to aid in implementing features and providing backwards compatibility with previous versions. Modification of the source for personal use is permitted. Modifications sent to the authors are humbly accepted and it is their prerogative to make the mods official. Only the official sources may be redistributed and no sale of the code or any part thereof is permitted without written consent from the authors. Further, no part of the code may be used in any other product, free or otherwise, without consent from the authors. Distribution of sources containing adaptations of the SunView interface to XView or to any X11-based interface is expressly prohibited. MUSH IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY. AUTHORS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Mush is currently in non-free and the source code is modified quite extensively (the .diff.gz is 131K). Are we allowed to distribute the modified sources in this manner, and binaries built from them? Regards, -- Göran Weinholt [EMAIL PROTECTED] - student/sysadm/Debian developer GPG: 1024D/4A8854E6 EC27 7F6A DFA9 CBBD 9EE3 F07A 8DF5 8BB6 4A88 54E6 Science does not remove the terror of the Gods. -- J.R. Bob Dobbs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Problem with mush's license
Hi, my interpretation is that we avoid a problem: We only distribute the orginal sources (alongside a .diff.gz, but that's ok). Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified sources. Maybe Modification of the source for personal use is permitted. can be a problem, since the binary building developer does not really modify the source for personal use (or does he?). I'd say it might be ok, but to be safe we should just drop it. nomeata Am Mo, den 05.04.2004 schrieb Göran Weinholt um 17:59: Hi, I'd like for you to decipher the following license, since I believe that we are currently violating it: Mush is copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 by Dan Heller. All Rights Reserved. This software is not in the public domain. Redistribution of the unmodified source code is permitted as long as all copyright notices remain intact and all other identifying notices remain in the code and in the binary. This includes message headers on outgoing mail and the startup message. Future releases may extract the release version from the message headers of mush-originated messages to aid in implementing features and providing backwards compatibility with previous versions. Modification of the source for personal use is permitted. Modifications sent to the authors are humbly accepted and it is their prerogative to make the mods official. Only the official sources may be redistributed and no sale of the code or any part thereof is permitted without written consent from the authors. Further, no part of the code may be used in any other product, free or otherwise, without consent from the authors. Distribution of sources containing adaptations of the SunView interface to XView or to any X11-based interface is expressly prohibited. MUSH IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY. AUTHORS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Mush is currently in non-free and the source code is modified quite extensively (the .diff.gz is 131K). Are we allowed to distribute the modified sources in this manner, and binaries built from them? Regards, -- Joachim nomeata Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata signature.asc Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Bug#242281: Problem with mush's license
Package: mush Severity: serious Version: 7.2.5unoff2-20 On Mon, 05 Apr 2004, Göran Weinholt wrote: I'd like for you to decipher the following license, since I believe that we are currently violating it: Mush is copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 by Dan Heller. All Rights Reserved. This software is not in the public domain. Redistribution of the unmodified source code is permitted as long as all copyright notices remain intact and all other identifying notices remain in the code and in the binary. This includes message headers on outgoing mail and the startup message. Future releases may extract the release version from the message headers of mush-originated messages to aid in implementing features and providing backwards compatibility with previous versions. Modification of the source for personal use is permitted. Modifications sent to the authors are humbly accepted and it is their prerogative to make the mods official. Only the official sources may be redistributed and no sale of the code or any part thereof is permitted without written consent from the authors. Further, no part of the code may be used in any other product, free or otherwise, without consent from the authors. Distribution of sources containing adaptations of the SunView interface to XView or to any X11-based interface is expressly prohibited. MUSH IS PROVIDED AS IS, WITHOUT WARRANTY. AUTHORS HEREBY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Mush is currently in non-free and the source code is modified quite extensively (the .diff.gz is 131K). Are we allowed to distribute the modified sources in this manner, and binaries built from them? There sure doesn't seem to be any permision to distribute binaries in this License, nor is there any permision to distribute binaries that are modified (as the diff.gz does.) At best, we would only be able to distribute the source and a patch file for compilation by users. However, the fact that no part of the code may be used in any other product, free or otherwise may even preclude us from distributing it at all. [I'd argue that it definetly precludes vendors from including this package on a non-free disc, but I haven't made up my mind yet for the archive itself.] If others agree, this bug should be reassigned to ftp-master requesting removal of the binary packages, and possibly the source packages as well. Don Armstrong -- For those who understand, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none is possible. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Re: Problem with mush's license
Scripsit Joachim Breitner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nothing is said about distribution of binaries of unmodified sources. If nothing is said about it, then it is not allowed. I agree with Don Armstrong that the binary packages must be removed from the archive. -- Henning MakholmLigger Öresund stadig i Middelfart?
