Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> BTW, George: You said nasty things on this list. You are free to change your
> distribution, but please refrain from prejudices --- we actually try our
> best to include every software available. But sometimes we are not allowed
> to do so. Blame the upstream author for it (read: ask him politely to change
> license).
When did the license for Pine change? As far as I know the only thing
that changed was Debian's interpretation of it. I think it will be the
only Linux distribution without a Pine binary. I also do not feel I have
said anything "nasty". I have tried to point out where Debian is making
what could turn out to be a serious mistake in its thinking and correct
it. The vast majority of uses of Unix systems in this world have no clue
how to edit a dotfile. They can't even use vi let alone emacs. I see a
trend towards alienation of users without a degree in Computer Science. I
absolutely do NOT want to see Debian head off on some Slackwarian
direction.
> *We* can't change the license, and we will not change our policy
> for pine or other non-free software.
You already DID change your policy, I am asking to have it changed BACK.
If the Debian diff is nothing more that items needed to get it to compile
and the locations of where things are to be put in the filesystem, that is
not a change to pine, those are configuration items. I can not see how
configuration conflicts with the license. Now there was a "what-if"
question raised about "what if" debian decided to make a change to the
source code for security reasons or whatever and I say that you should
burn that bridge when you come to it.
> If you dislike this, there are other distributions that can make commercial
> agreements with upstream authors --- we are a voluntarily effort, and can
> not do such agreements (instead, we request that other's must have the same
> right as the Debian distribution. We don't like exceptions made for us, and
> will not make use of them). This is to protect *your* right to distribute
> the Debian distribution.
I am completely aware of this. I have been an advocate of Debian
GNU/Linux for a couple of years now. I see what is happening now as
something entirely different. It APPEARS as if Debian is actually looking
for excuses to make non-free or less-free software more difficult to
install and use in order to promote wider use of the free software even
when it is clearly not as good or not as easy to use. I would like some
reassurance that this is not happening. If it is, I will save myself a
lot of time and bail now.
Debian has the best packaging system and the best integrated distribution.
It should concentrate on getting as much as possible into the distribution
and not on playing politics to build a cross on which to crucify it. I
have a project I am working on that will be based on Debian. Yes it will
have Pine and that will be the default text mail reader for the user and
yes, it will have Pico and that will be the default text-mode editor for
new users. Removing Pine does not make it any better, only adds another
step in the configuration of the system. It is not going to promote the
use of any alternative software in my case, it just makes the "cost" of
using Debian go up a bit.
There is free and there is free-enough. Politically Correct Software is
not a goal. Utillity for the end user is.
George Bonser
If I had a catchy quip, it would be here.
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: