Re: Pine in Debian [Was:Debian vs Red Hat???]
Will Lowe wrote:
> > Can I ask why debian doesn't include pine? Just curious. I know Debian
> The license for pine doesn't allow you to redistribute "modified binaries"
> (e.g., fix a bug in the source, compile it, and redistribute the
> executable you get from this). Therefore, it can't be included as part of
> Debian -- it doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines at
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines. Besides which, we have
> to make patches to pine to get it to put its files in the right place,
> etc. on a Debian system, and once we make those patches, we're not allowed
> to redistribute the compiled program anyway!
> Other distros that include Pine must obviously therefore compile without
> making patches, or have arranged other (special) redistribution terms with
> the University of Washington, or are simply violating the copyright.
> We do include the pine source, and a patch that users can use to build
> their own Debian-ish binaries. As a matter of fact, apt will download and
> build the package for you:
> apt-get --compile source pine4-src
> ... when this is done, you should have some .deb files you can install via
> "dpkg -i".
Just a pitiful newbie wondering: I thought all *nix'es were
supposed to use basically the same filesystem-structure. How
come then, that Debian has proprietary placement of files?
(maybe I've missed a point here, but isn't that part of the
idea with *nix; to have a standard for the fs, which all
flavors adhere to?!) I tend to feel uneasy using my buddy's
SuSe-system; things don't work the way they do in Debian, and
stuff is placed differently...
Is Debian developing into a segregated OS, straying from the
righteous path of *nix?!
Please, let's not have another religious war...
Best Regards and thx for all the great support, which really
helps making Debian such a great dist, and life less miserable
for a newbie ;-)
"I'm not a crook"