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.
o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_
<V> | jw(a)suse.de wide open suse_/ _---|____________\/
\ | 0911 74053-508 (tm)__/ (____/ /\
(/) | __________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8