Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 email@example.com wrote:
> > If the binary isn't up to date, it defeats the idea of providing it. And
> > seeking out permission to distribute specific binaries is not what Debian
> > is in the business of doing. Please, read
> > http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html, specifically point 9 of the
> > Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The social contract is what
> > Debian *IS*. If you don't like it, you know where to find RedHat.
> Which probably should hold for everything in main but not non-free or
> contrib. Those portions are specificly for software that does not meet
> the DFSG.
Well, contrib contains software that meets the DFSG but depends on stuff
> Anything in non-free is guaranteed to be non-DFSG compliant.
As long as we're actually permitted to distribute it. As people have
tried to tell you, the pine maintainer (or someone else, i forget which)
noticed that the pine licence seemed to forbid distribution of modified
binaries. Concerned, the pine maintainer contacted UWash and found out
that that WAS their intent. To comply with their wishes and with the
licence (and to keep Debian from getting sued), pine binaries were removed
from our servers.
The prior inclusion of pine binaries was IN ERROR and AGAINST THE STATED
WISHES OF THE PINE AUTHORS. We've corrected the error and don't intend to
make it again. We've been scrutinizing other copyrights for similar
problems (I know the TeTeX packages have had particular problems with
poorly licenced code).
Scott K. Ellis <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org