On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 11:48:07AM -0500, Caspian wrote: > > I think that pico is more easily clonable than pine, isn't it? > > Yes. But I feel that both are necessary to clone. PINE is -very- popular > here, especially at universities. And it's far from free. Pico is also > quite popular, especially among Unix newbies and those too lazy to learn > something else (e.g. me ;) ) Not to break out the cluestick or anything, > but really guys, you -aren't- going to convince everyone to give up pico > and pine, and if any given distro doesn't offer them (or exact clones > thereof), people will be seriously annoyed. And they -will- download and > install pico and pine. Let's not create a distro that would tempt such a > wide swath of Unix users to go out and pollute it with non-free > nonsense... Um, why don't you have a look at the latest versions of the pine license. The primary reason pine is still non-free is that they limit distribution to CD and I think ftp because when they fixed the license last the people doing the fixing were told about needing to be able to distribute it both places. They never bothered to consider that it might be distributed OTHER places. It might just be simpler for everybody to talk to UW about it. Life would be much easier if they just BSD'd it or put it under Artistic (yuk) or something.. -- - Joseph Carter GnuPG public key: 1024D/DCF9DAB3, 2048g/3F9C2A43 - knghtbrd@debian.org 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am dyslexic of Borg. Prepare to have your ass laminated.
Attachment:
pgp7MsJAWoYQe.pgp
Description: PGP signature