Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote:
[ snip ]
:
: > *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.
Words mean things. Words used in a license definitely mean things,
especially when the legal interpretation of those words does not mean
what the author intended them to mean. Nevertheless, it is the legal
interpretation that must be followed, and not what the author "meant".
Debian is trying to be consistent with licensing. If that means
ignoring the prevalent attitude of "To hell with it; the license is
unclear but our users want it" as opposed to following the letter of the
law, I agree with the latter. So does Debian, apparently.
A Pine binary deb would be cool. So would a qmail deb. But, legal
interpretation of the licenses does not allow distributing modified
binaries, unless they are "approved" (reread the license and you will
see that is indeed the case).
It's not like someone is saying you can't use Pine or qmail ... there
are source packages! Compiling a source package is not the end of the
world ... a few years ago it was the only way to install most software
in Linux iirc.
: > 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 isn't looking for excuses, they're reading the licenses. Surely
you don't advocate illegal activity?
: 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.
Pine is not "removed"; it's just not present as a binary package. Big
deal. Compile the package and put it in your "local" section on your
own server ... then it will be available as a binary package for any
system you configure. I have an ftp/NFS server which mirrors Debian,
and that makes configuration of future systems quite easy. The apt and
http methods make retrieving files from multiple servers quite easy.
Debian does indeed have the best packaging system I've ever seen. The
stability of the system is also the best I've ever seen.
: There is free and there is free-enough. Politically Correct Software is
: not a goal. Utillity for the end user is.
I don't understand why following a license decreases user utility. It
may add work for the sysadmin ...
By the way, the main goals of Debian are nicely laid out at
http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract.html
--
Nathan Norman
MidcoNet - 410 South Phillips Avenue - Sioux Falls, SD 57104
mailto://finn@midco.net http://www.midco.net
finger finn@kepler.midco.net for PGP Key: (0xA33B86E9)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: