[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#3253: Pine base64 bug

Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:

> > I can't believe you are seriously trying to claim that anything
> > documented is not a bug, I refer you once again to the
> > hypothetical example of a documented alias ls='rm -fr', is that
> > not a bug?
[ ... ]
> The issue with Pine is not in that class.

So?  I'm worried by the fact that maintainers of Brian's stature have
this belief that by documenting a bug and calling it intended
behaviour you can magick it into non-existence.  Yes my examples are
extreme, but if Brian wants to hold this position for Pine, I'll take
it to it's logical conclusion.

> We have much more control over what we deliver from the free
> software side. (Yet Another Good Reason For Free Software!)

The freeness of Pine is not the issue here (although you keep trying
to make it so), the current Pine copyright allows the "unrestricted
distribution of patch files", this is sufficient for someone to fix
the bug and for Debian to continue distributing pine as it is now
(source only).
> BTW, if this haggling over Pine's MIME awareness was intended to get
> the authors to free up their license, I can only say that it hasn't
> worked.

Huh? I definitely had no such intentions, I doubt Guy did either, and
Ian originally filed a bug about Pine's behaviour when it was
considered free.

> Pine's license is as restrictive as I've ever seen it.  We can't
> even distribute a .deb file for Pine under its current copyright.

We can however distribute patches.


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: