the perennial pine licensing problem
Am I missing something, or is the current pine license
(http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html) ok for non-free?
(The question has come up here again, and I don't see the things I used
to point to in explaining the situtation. I'm also getting really tired
of hearing people ask why debian doesn't have pine. They keep getting
snitty when I tell them to use mutt. :-) Anyway, please look at that url
before responding--this isn't the same license it used to be. Please cc
me also, I'm not a regular denizen of debian-legal.
--
Mike Stone
Reply to: