On Mar 23, 06 14:42:22 +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
> > That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-)
>
> I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to change
> the code and release their changes to the public, there's still a problem
> with
> claiming that it's OSS.
Martin is right. We still cannot claim that pine is OSS.
I am trying to contact the U of W to verify their approval
with regard to Novell's business products and also address the news
that we do a 'real OSS' distribution now.
We simply do not know what U of W intended with this license.
> I don't think this changes anything - of course Novell is in the clear in
> terms of legal action - but we still need (1) the licenses to change, (2)
> these apps moved to non-oss section or (3) these apps to be replaced
> completely.
It changes something: it gives hope.
We now have a hint that pine code maybe was intended
as free software (despite the license text).
If this turns out to be true, good for us.
cheers,
Jw.
Btw: all this is based on a single e-mail eight years ago.
For me, that is not enough to feel 'in the clear'.
--
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]
