Re: what about Pine's license?
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:05:54AM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > Go on, please.
> >
> > It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries.
>
> That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so?
>
> > 'nuff said
>
> No.
Yes. Permission not given in a license is DENIED. When UW was asked
about this, they indicated that binaries should either be built from
pristine source or patches must be accepted by them or they don't want
you distributing binaries and they would not change this practice.
Requiring such evil things as gaining permission to distribute a modified
binary makes the software non-free. In fact, Debian can't even offer a
non-free package. It must offer only source, as is required with qmail.
Trust me, pine is in non-free for a reason. If you don't like that
reason I suggest you take it up with UW since they're the only one who
can even begin to change anything. =<
--
"I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best
work in the dark."
-- Earth: Final Conflict
Reply to: