On 29 Sep 1999, Peter Makholm wrote: > David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Reply-to set to -legal > > > Furthermore, there is NO clause explicitly forbidding distribution of > > modified versions; the only clause that mentions patches binaries is the > > one concerning Local modification. > > If it not explicit allowed it is disallowed. Thats how copyrightlaws i > most of the world works (US inclusive).
'k. I won't argue with you; I'm not too versed in legal practice. > Local modification is not local if they are distributed. True. > > I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks > > for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe > > them to be pretty reasonable. > > Yes but then it must go into non-free: License must not be specific to > Debian. Sure, but that was what I said in my first post, anyway. /David _ _ // David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
