Unclear licensing terms

[ulm]

From LICENSE.md it is not entirely clear what is permitted and what is not. Is redistribution of the unmodified source code allowed? Because the license doesn't say so (at least not explicitly):

Albert is freeware, i.e. proprietary and source available. You may redistribute compiled packages with an explicit written permission. You are permitted to use the code or prebuilt packages for your personal usage, provided that the following conditions are met:
[... list of conditions ...]

The first of the items then mentions "redistribution of source code", but only as a condition, not as a grant of permission.

Binary distribution is explicitly permitted for the following distributions/platforms:
[...]

• Gentoo and its derivates

It is unclear whether this permission includes distribution of binaries by Gentoo users and/or distribution on mirror servers that are not operated by the Gentoo Foundation but by third parties.

Of course, some of these questions may also apply to other distros.

Please clarify.

[ManuelSchneid3r]

Generally we have licensing issues that I try to sort out atm. when done I'll come back to this issue.

[CaseOf]

Hello,
albert was removed from Gentoo official repository today, as they were announcing it a month ago.
They did also close the related bug in their bugtracker.
This does not prevent us to work on the license issue, of course.
I don’t think however, once this issue is solved to put albert back on the official Gentoo repository, not because of albert, but about the proxy-maintainers project on Gentoo which have very long delays to merge any updates.
I’m still maintaining albert package on my own Gentoo overlay and it is available to anyone that would like to use it.