Re: PINE Debian Package
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, George Bonser wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
>
> > Yes, this is very unfortunate. But the upstream authors really do not want
> > to change the license, so Debian has no choise. And the user can be given
> > very specific intstructions or even a script that will make it very easy
> > to compile and install pine.
>
> I wonder if we might be able to accomodate both needs. An approved binary
> that might not change as often as the source and a source package that a
> current binary can be built from if desired.
If the binary isn't up to date, it defeats the idea of providing it. And
seeking out permission to distribute specific binaries is not what Debian
is in the business of doing. Please, read
http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html, specifically point 9 of the
Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The social contract is what
Debian *IS*. If you don't like it, you know where to find RedHat.
> > [1] You can't sue Debian at all, actually, since Debian is not
> > incorporated in any way so legally Debian doesn't even exist. You'd have
> > to sue the indivudual maintainers.
>
> Having a box hacked into is one thing, providing a program that
> delibrately contains a back door (as the original Sendmail source did) is
> something different. That is why I think some authors are so paranoid.
> Email security is a big issue. It is fairly easy to code a MUA that could
> send a copy of the inbox on demand just as it is easy to code an MTA to
> grant root access on demand.
Which is why "Open Source" software is so important. If you have the
source to an application, it is much harder for security holes to remain
undetected.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: