I was hoping somebody would respond to this -- I'll take a stab in the interest of leading to a resolution:
I think it would depend on whether the authors clarified or changed the license. If they change the license, the new license presumably applies to new releases, not prior releases, and prior releases could continue to be used under the terms of the old version of the license. If they "clarify" the license, it implies something like they think people have been misinterpreting the terms of the existing license, and their preference, no doubt, is that you comply with their clarification even for older releases of the product. It might be appropriate to comply with their preference, but I'm not sure that it could be legally enforced, in fact I think it is not very likely -- I suspect if a court case ensued, the result would depend mostly on things other than an "ex post facto" clarification by the authors, although that might be considered. (But, I am really uncertain about this, and, in addition to all other considerations, it probably depends on what country / jurisdiction the case is tried in.) NOTE: IANAL -- IANAL -- IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) Randy Kramer Damian G wrote: > > Actually nano has the same command structure as pico, and to get pico > > you need to install pine. You won't be seeing pine in the download > > edition any longer because the authors have "clarified" their license > > terms and it is abundantly clear that it is neither free nor open-source > > nor really distributable. This means of course that you won't be seeing > > pico either. > > > > Civileme > > uhm.. not even an older version, issued with a "not-clarified" license?
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
