Re: inofficially maintained package collection? - SPICE COPYRIGHT issues
> > > > Believe me, spice has no license. Redhat has been packaging spice
> > > > for some time now. Don't understand how they did it.
> > >
> > > I do not understand how other distributions can ship pine.
> > They don't pay attention to the license. Simple as that.
> Don't know if I remember correctly or not, but doesn't the license say
> "without permission" ? -- which means either A) you are right, or
> B) they asked and got permission to distribute modified binaries.
whoops... I was refering to spice. I have some friends in EE and a while
ago I wanted to package spice just to get them interested in Debian, but I
didn't because of the license. In the case of pine, yes, probably RedHat
has got permission to redistribute binaries for pine or something. I
stopped caring about pine a long time ago. In fact, I owe many thanks to
the people who wrote the pine lincese: with a free pine, I would have never
discovered mutt :)