Re: PINE Debian Package
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> Yes, this is very unfortunate. But the upstream authors really do not want
> to change the license, so Debian has no choise. And the user can be given
> very specific intstructions or even a script that will make it very easy
> to compile and install pine.
I wonder if we might be able to accomodate both needs. An approved binary
that might not change as often as the source and a source package that a
current binary can be built from if desired.
> [1] You can't sue Debian at all, actually, since Debian is not
> incorporated in any way so legally Debian doesn't even exist. You'd have
> to sue the indivudual maintainers.
Having a box hacked into is one thing, providing a program that
delibrately contains a back door (as the original Sendmail source did) is
something different. That is why I think some authors are so paranoid.
Email security is a big issue. It is fairly easy to code a MUA that could
send a copy of the inbox on demand just as it is easy to code an MTA to
grant root access on demand.
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: