On Tue, Aug 22, 2000 at 06:14:48PM -0700, Lori Stevens wrote: > > First of all, by this message you have our permission to distribute a > > modified version of IMAPD.
On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:36:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > This part is a problem; I think it may implicitly fail clause 8 of the > Debian Free Software Guidelines. Nope. That message was not a copyright notice, so the DFSG isn't really an issue. I believe that message was a "the developers have no problems with you" sort of permission. If she'd said that we *shouldn't* distribute, that would be a problem. But what she said is that we *could*. And, unlike KDE, the copyright isn't a problem. I've already asked her to confirm that she means what she seems to have said (that they have no problems with Debian distributing IMAPD), and I kinda wish that people would stop agonizing about being granted explicit permission to distribute in a case where we already have legal permission to distribute. Remember: the reason I asked in the first place was that RMS was concerned that UW might have issues that weren't reflected in the copyright. Given my original question, it's perfectly reasonable for her to grant redundant permission for Debian to go ahead with the distribution of IMAPD. I do hope these random "this is not ok" messages being sent to Lori don't annoy them into doing something unpleasant with future releases. -- Raul
