Bug#405762: License status of Maildir patch
Asheesh Laroia
Can you tell me if the Maildir patch that Debian distributes with pine is
under a Free license? I can find no licensing information on it. (And,
if you know it is Free, what license is it under?)
Eduardo is unwilling ("currently") to license his patches under any
license, including a Free license. If the Pine patch we ship is not Free,
and Eduardo's patch is not Free, then we are back to square one.
But I would like to know that if that is the case.
-- Asheesh.
--
Hickory Dickory Dock,
The mice ran up the clock,
The clock struck one,
The others escaped with minor injuries.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Santiago Vila
> Santiago -
>
> Can you tell me if the Maildir patch that Debian distributes with pine is
> under a Free license?
Yes, it is under a BSD-like license. From imap/src/osdep/unix/maildir.c:
[...]
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
* documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
* that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the
* above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
* documentation, and that the name of the University of Washington not be
* used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
* without specific, written prior permission. This software is made
* available "as is", and
* THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ALL IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND IN
* NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
* INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM
* LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
* WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> Eduardo is unwilling ("currently") to license his patches under any
> license, including a Free license. If the Pine patch we ship is not Free,
> and Eduardo's patch is not Free, then we are back to square one.
Well, this is what Eduardo said in March 2007:
> I myself do not care what people do with the patch as long as they
> don't claim ownership.
and later:
> As far as my reading of the license goes, all I ask about license is
> compatible and allowed under the Apache 2.0 License; but I do not want my
> work to be under such license.
The way I read this, it seems that Eduardo considers the Apache 2.0 License
too much restrictive for his patch.
If that's the case, maybe he would accept a BSD-like license for his patch,
as everything he seemed to ask is that nobody claims ownership of the patch.