On Sat, 2003-02-08 at 21:31, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Alex" == Alexander Hvostov <alex@aoi.dyndns.org> writes:
>
> > When did Pine become proprietary?
>
> Pine has always been non-free.
I don't think we are using the same definition of 'proprietary'. I'm
using the one from the Jargon File:
In the language of hackers and users, inferior; implies a
product not conforming to open-systems standards, and thus one
that puts the customer at the mercy of a vendor who can inflate
service and upgrade charges after the initial sale has locked
the customer in.
Pine conforms to an awful lot of open-systems standards, makes no
attempt to lock users in (I migrated from it to another MUA fairly
painlessly), and does not put users at the mercy of anyone who can
inflate service and upgrade charges because it didn't cost anything to
begin with.
Just because it's non-free doesn't mean it is 'proprietary' as per this
definition.
Alex.
--
PGP Public Key: http://aoi.dyndns.org/~alex/pgp-public-key
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d- s:++ a18 C++(++++)>$ UL+++(++++) P--- L+++>++++ E---- W+(+++) N-
o-- K+ w--- !O M(+) V-- PS+++ PE-- Y+ PGP+(+++) t* 5-- X-- R tv b- DI
D+++ G e h! !r y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part