Re: sources.list question
On Sat, Feb 09, 2002 at 05:51:17PM -0800, Patrick Kirk wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I remember pine is only available as source due to licensing issue and
> > removed from binary distribution. If I were desparate, I might download
> > source package and compile. (Which I believe comes with pico.)
> >
> > But, I will recommend you to move to "mutt" if you used "pine" or
> > "elm". As for "pico", install "nano".
> >
> so what is non-free for if it doesn't cover things like pine?
>
> Nano is fine btw - I'm just asking out of curiosity now.
Sometime ago there was a feverish discussion why pine can't be in
non-free as binary. It turns out that the license of pine prohibits
distribution of a binary that was produced as a result of changing
the source code. For a debian package to exist, we must add
at least /debian directory in the source together with all the
dependencies in there. This is a change to the source code. So we
can't distribute the binary...
You can get the sources, go into the pine
source directory, type "debian/rules binary" and you'll end
up with .deb of pico and pine in the parent directory.
IMO, it's stupid for pine to have a license like that but
that's life. I don't use it any more. I find mutt to have
more features I like :)
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: