Will Lowe wrote: > > > Can I ask why debian doesn't include pine? Just curious. I know Debian > > The license for pine doesn't allow you to redistribute "modified binaries" > (e.g., fix a bug in the source, compile it, and redistribute the > executable you get from this). Therefore, it can't be included as part of > Debian -- it doesn't meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines at > http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines. Besides which, we have > to make patches to pine to get it to put its files in the right place, > etc. on a Debian system, and once we make those patches, we're not allowed > to redistribute the compiled program anyway! > > Other distros that include Pine must obviously therefore compile without > making patches, or have arranged other (special) redistribution terms with > the University of Washington, or are simply violating the copyright. > > We do include the pine source, and a patch that users can use to build > their own Debian-ish binaries. As a matter of fact, apt will download and > build the package for you: > > apt-get --compile source pine4-src > > ... when this is done, you should have some .deb files you can install via > "dpkg -i". > > Will > Just a pitiful newbie wondering: I thought all *nix'es were supposed to use basically the same filesystem-structure. How come then, that Debian has proprietary placement of files? (maybe I've missed a point here, but isn't that part of the idea with *nix; to have a standard for the fs, which all flavors adhere to?!) I tend to feel uneasy using my buddy's SuSe-system; things don't work the way they do in Debian, and stuff is placed differently... Is Debian developing into a segregated OS, straying from the righteous path of *nix?! Please, let's not have another religious war... Best Regards and thx for all the great support, which really helps making Debian such a great dist, and life less miserable for a newbie ;-) Vitux
-- "I'm not a crook" Richard Nixon Debian GNU/Linux Micro$loth-free Zone
