On Tue, Jun 15, 1999 at 10:05:44AM +0300, Brock Rozen wrote:
> > pico is non-free, so I see no reason to hinge a decision on whether something
> > in debian supports something thats non-free.
>
> To clear up any confusion, the Pine (as such, pico; I believe) license has
> changed and that might make it eligible to be taken out of "non-free".
No, it doesn't.. It's got several bits of evilness. I'll worry about
license issues to get pine into main after I've done so with KDE and have
gotten it there.
> Some people might remember the message I posted a few weeks ago regarding
> my discussion with the Pine developers. This might be as a result of that.
It's a messy license that contaminates other software and allows
distribution on cdrom but only on cdrom.. Distribution of modified
binaries is not clear but it seems like it was intended to be granted
provided the version was appended with an "L"..
When people mean one thing but the license says another is what really
sucks. =p
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<stu> you should be afraid to use KDE because RMS might come to your
house and cleave your monitor with an axe or something :)
Attachment:
pgpE9rAIhxKsx.pgp
Description: PGP signature