Re: pine license
On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> wrote:
> In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
> retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
> is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
I don't think the issue at that time was that they revoked the prior
license, but that we generally try and cooperate with the providers
of software. If someone doesn't want us working with them, why
Also, if I recall correctly, there was a gnu project to write a pine
replacement, but I don't know where that stands. Probably it's
not complete because of a lack of development effort.