pine RPM and IPv6 for imapd

[Antonio Querubin]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Jef Spaleta wrote:

> Antonio Querubin writes:
>
> > ..."
> >
> > and various typical accountability/liability conditions follow.
> > To me the intent seems that it's open source and modification and
> > redistribution is allowed.
>
> thats pretty funny...that you left out the specific bits of the license
> that actually matter....

Only to keep the email short.  Not being a lawyer I have no idea how
relevant the specific bits are.

> Here's a question for you...is the license under which pine is
> distributed OSI approved?
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

> Now i'm not suggesting that an OSI approved license is necessary for
> fedora inclusion, because i don't know if thats true or not. But

Doesn't look like it's on the list and neither am I sure what's required
for Fedora inclusion.

> maybe... exactly how the pine license works and restrictions on it are
> subtle enough so that the mind-numbingly pedantic bits of the license
> that you didn't cut and paste to the list are not 'typical
> accountability/liability conditions' at all.

Ok, for discussion sake here's the remainder of the copyright.  If anybody
spots any red flags in there perhaps they could point it out.

"(1) modified versions are distributed with source code and
documentation and with permission for others to use any code and
documentation (whether in original or modified versions) as granted
under this license;

(2) if modified, the source code, documentation, and user run-time
elements should be clearly labeled by placing an identifier of origin
(such as a name, initial, or other tag) after the version number;

(3) users, modifiers, distributors, and others coming into possession
or using the Distribution in original or modified form accept the
entire risk as to the possession, use, and performance of the
Distribution;

(4) this copyright management information (software identifier and
version number, copyright notice and license) shall be retained in all
versions of the Distribution;

(5) the University of Washington may make modifications to the
Distribution that are substantially similar to modified versions of
the Distribution, and may make, use, sell, copy, distribute, publicly
display, and perform such modifications, including making such
modifications available under this or other licenses, without
obligation or restriction;

(6) modifications incorporating code, libraries, and/or documentation
subject to any other open source license may be made, and the
resulting work may be distributed under the terms of such open source
license if required by that open source license, but doing so will not
affect this Distribution, other modifications made under this license
or modifications made under other University of Washington licensing
arrangements;

(7) no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or
publicly perform modifications to the Distribution made using
proprietary materials that cannot be released in source format under
conditions of this license;

(8) the name of the University of Washington may not be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to Distribution of the software
without specific, prior written 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."

> I humbly submit that if the license is not OSI approved its got some
> subtle strings attached that make it problematic. I don't claim to
> understand those strings, and I doubt you do either. But you know...i
> bet this license has come up for OSI consideration in the past, and
> there is probably discussion archived on the OSI relevant mailinglists
> that you can research if you care enough to want to understand.

Searching now...