Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: > On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 04:34:22PM -0600, Daniel Taylor wrote: > >>Have you _read_ the license for Pine? > > > I have. I think the author of nano explains it well: > > http://www.asty.org/articles/20010702pine.html > > > > >>Debian doesn't distribute it in a binary package because >>even the slight modifications to the source tree to package >>it could violate the license UWash distributes it under. > > > That's fine, I don't want anyone modifying pico/pine =) > > >>under. If you can't burn the binaries onto a CD and sell the CD legally >>it can't go in main. > > > 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. > > ^--- > Right, and you aren't allowed to distribute binaries from "modified" source. So even if the additional directory required to package it doesn't violate the license, any bugfixes that do not come from an official release of the upstream distribution can't be applied. I personally think that the Debian organization is wonderful for _respecting_ the licenses of the software they distribute, or that they choose _not_ to distribute because the license says they can't. -- I gotta get a .sig on this machine... _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list