From hugh@u.washington.edu  Mon Jul 19 16:51:12 2004
Return-Path: <hugh@u.washington.edu>
Received: from mxout3.cac.washington.edu (mxout3.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.166])
	by mathstat.unl.edu (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6JLpBq7015401
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO)
	for <rdieter@math.unl.edu>; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:51:12 -0500
Received: from homer07.u.washington.edu (homer07.u.washington.edu [140.142.15.41])
	by mxout3.cac.washington.edu (8.12.11+UW04.02/8.12.11+UW04.03) with ESMTP id i6JLp9n0020104;
	Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:09 -0700
Received: from localhost (hugh@localhost)
	by homer07.u.washington.edu (8.12.11+UW04.02/8.12.11+UW04.05) with ESMTP id i6JLp9Yv103846;
	Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:09 -0700
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Sheets <hugh@u.washington.edu>
To: rdieter@math.unl.edu
cc: pine-license@cac.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Permission to distribute pine for Fedora Extras 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.58.0407141307010.269898@homer07.u.washington.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.58.0407191445510.236314@homer07.u.washington.edu>
References: <Pine.A41.4.58.0407141307010.269898@homer07.u.washington.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: R
X-Status: 
X-Keywords:                  

Rex,
Thanks for your patience.

We appreciate the fact that many people have concerns about including Pine
in open/community source distributions.  We hope that you can appreciate
that, unlike Linux, Pine is not a community source project and we have
different intellectual property constraints.  Although many in the open
source community disagree, the University's intellectual property counsel
states that we must adhere to our current levels of change control,
especially to protect/defend our Pine trademark.

That said, we do seek to support the open/community source world as much as
we can.  In particular, we try to incorporate reasonable changes to our
distribution so that no additional approval is needed for redistribution.

By this message you have our permission to redistribute versions of Pine
with emergency security patches.  We would of course appreciate receiving
any such patches for potential inclusion in the UW distribution.

Regarding the proposed changes, we believe three of the four proposed
patches are superfluous.  According to one of the Pine software engineers:

 "The pine-4.30-ldap.patch is no longer necessary. Pine 4.61, when built
  on a fedora/redhat system with the "./build lrh" command, should
  properly detect the ldap shared library (with the call to ldap-setup
  in the build script).

  Another unnecessary patch is the pine-4.60-redhat.patch, which sets the
  path names correctly in the documentation.  Starting with 4.60, we went
  to some lengths to get redhat/debian builds to describe files by their
  correct paths.  The source code and pine.hlp were changed to allow for
  flexibility in path names, and the documentation itself is changed during
  build time such that the correct paths are represented.  These changed
  files are put into the bin/ directory after a call to "sed".  The
  Makefile change is unnecessary as it can be set from the spec file by
  passing the arguments as EXTRACFLAGS to the build command.

  The pine-4.33-passfile.patch is unnecessary, as setting PASSFILE can be
  done at build-time via the EXTRACFLAGS method already mentioned.

  For instance, the following command could be used in the spec file in lieu
  of the two Makefile edits:

  ./build 'EXTRACFLAGS=$(RPM_OPT_FLAGS) -DPASSFILE=\".pine.pwd\"' lrh

  I highly recommend that this person check out the packages/pine.spec file
  which is the spec file we use for the rpms that we ourselves put out."

In contrast to the first three, we do have concerns about the fourth
(shared library) patch because our experience has been that shared
libraries can cause significant support issues that outweigh their
benefits.  Nevertheless, we hereby grant permission for you to redistribute
current and subsequent Pine versions with this patch, provided that the
change is documented in the help text and your constituency is directed to
report bugs to you, not to us.

While we understand that you'd prefer a blanket one-time approval for any
and all changes, we hope that the accommodations herein to obviate the need
for recurring approvals will meet your requirements:

 -Blanket approval for redistributing emergency security fixes.
 -Incorporating requested changes in the UW distribution if possible.
 -Approval for redistributing specific changes for current and subsequent
  versions on a case by case basis.

As stated above, you have permission to redistribute versions of Pine
with emergency security patches and the shared library patch. This assumes
you've read http://www.washington.edu/pine/legal.html and you meet the
other conditions.

This permission is granted on the condition that you assume all risks
pertaining to your redistribution and agree to indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless the University of Washington from any and all claims or damages
that might arise through activity related to this use of Pine software
and/or trademark.

We ask that you include the following acknowledgement in your
distribution:

    Pine and Pico are trademarks of the University of Washington, used by
    Permission.

Note that the University of Washington's Technology Transfer Office manages
the Pine license.  The current version is at
http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html and relevant FAQs are at
http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/.

Thanks for your interest.

Hugh Sheets
Manager, Messaging & Tools
IT Infrastructure Distributed Systems
University of Washington

