On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 08:12:08PM -0500, Michael Dickson wrote:
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.
As far as I know, the problem is not so much whether the license Pine is released under is GPL-compatible or not. There are many other applications in Red Hat and Fedora released under other licenses that, as in the case of the BSD license, allow anyone to grab your contribution and release them as a part of a proprietary closed-source solution. What originally caused the problem with Pine's license even before Fedora was created was the express prohibition to distribute a modified version of the application. I'm pretty certain this issue was discussed in some Red Hat lists in the past, but right now all I can find is an email from one of Debian's lists clarifying the issue:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/debian-legal-200008/msg00147.html
---------------- Nitebirdz http://www.sacredchaos.com/