On Mar 20, 06 02:34:21 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> On IRC, Benjamin Weber pointed me to some odd situation about the "pico"
> and "pine" packages.
> They're part of the SUSE Linux OSS distribution but their license is not
> even near something OSI approved (not even to mention FSF).
Correct. The pine license is neither OSI nor FSF approved.
Debian-legal also was all negative about it.
> Quoting Benjamin: "it doesn't allow redistribution of modified versions,
> and redistribution of the unmodified versions is only for inclusion in
> non-profit things or by prior inclusion".
The words of the pine license are unclear. Benjamin took one
interpretation. We had a different interpretation in the past.
But an unclear license is always a risk. We'll re-evaluate this in
the light of a new OSS spirit.
The basic issue is: We have quite a number of patches to the pine package,
and the U of W wants them upstream (at least according to the license).
But in practice we failed to etablish an upstream contact. Any pointers?
Thanks for bringing this up again.
cheers,
Jw.
--
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | [EMAIL PROTECTED] wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\
(/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
