pine RPM and IPv6 for imapd

[Michael Dickson]

On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 18:57, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Antonio Querubin writes:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> [ … ]
> 
> > (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;
> 
> That's the red flag right there.  This clause makes UW-IMAP's license 
> incompatible with the GPL.

So what.  There are other valid opensource licenses.  This is actually
mostly a mute point since redhat controls the distribution and they
determine what they are comfortable including from a licensing
perspective. 

> The University of Washington reserves the right to acquire any changes 
> you've made to their software, and use it for their own purposes and release 
> it under other licenses.

This doesn't say that.  It simply says that if they like something a
distributor did they can copy the functionality and resdistribute it. 
It doesn't imply they own local changes at all.  In fact other points in
the license specifically address that.  

> This has more in common with Microsoft's Shared Source license, rather than 
> any OSI-approved license.  The only substantive difference is that you do 
> not have to pay $100,000 to the University of Washington in order to obtain 
> the source code.

IMHO this is nothing like the M$ SSL. Its a pretty open, permissive
license.  Unfortunately redhat apparently doesn't agree so if I want
pine I'll have to get it and install it myself.  No biggie.  But lets
not paint the picture to make the University of Washington bad guys.  I
don't see them that way.

Mike