Andrea Borgia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9 Nov 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
>
> TBB>Pine prohibits the distribution of modified versions.
>
> Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
> appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
[MFT: debian-devel, since this is a proposal for a new packaging
project]
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:41:10PM +0100, Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Does anyone know of some free software that walks like Pine, talks like Pine
> and looks like Pine but in fact is not Pine? (something like nano instead of
>
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
SSP>you misinterpreted me.
Quite possibly: I twisted your words a little here and there, but mainly I
forgot a "8-)" at the end of the paragraph. Sorry, my comment was meant to
be humorous, not harsh.
SSP>list of armchair lawyers. We tend to be
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 11:46:35AM +0100, Andrea Borgia wrote:
> SV>Perhaps Debian just cares more than others about what is allowed by
> SV>licenses and what is not. This has happened several times in the
> SV>past and should not be a surprise.
> I have to take your word for it, because my talks
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
SV>GNU mana, but it's a dead project (UW was going to sue the FSF for it).
Small wonder they were going to sue: they might not object to people
shipping prebuilt pine binaries (but then again, as somebody pointed out,
they might as well), but they're not
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
> appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
And what are we then supposed to do when there is a security hole in
pine, or a bad interaction with something else in debian that ups
On Sunday 10 November 2002 02:25, Andrea Borgia wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
>
> SSP>RH can also afford to be sued.
>
> IMHO, you're kidding yourself if you do believe they're consciously trying
> to get sued by systematically ignoring licenses. They're a business and
>
* Andrea Borgia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [021110 11:18]:
> TBB>Pine prohibits the distribution of modified versions.
>
> Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
> appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
Sorry, but this is no option.
> My unde
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Andrea Borgia wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
>
>
> TBB>Pine prohibits the distribution of modified versions.
>
> Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
> appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Does anyone know of some free software that walks like Pine, talks like Pine
> and looks like Pine but in fact is not Pine? (something like nano instead of
> pico, mutt-fans please hands off the keyboard)
GNU mana, but it's a dead project (UW was going to sue the FSF for it)
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
SV>It seems to me that you have not even tried to compile the Debian
SV>version of pine, have you? Please "apt-get source pine" and compile it
I already have built pine both from debian official sources and from another
source I found, made by another De
Andrea Borgia wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> SV>No, if Debian accepts a special permission from UW to distribute modified
> SV>binaries, they will never see the need to make pine free software.
>
> This might be true, but I'm more interested in the opposite question: do you
> seriously believe tha
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Santiago Vila wrote:
SV>No, if Debian accepts a special permission from UW to distribute modified
SV>binaries, they will never see the need to make pine free software.
This might be true, but I'm more interested in the opposite question: do you
seriously believe that Debian
On Sat, 9 Nov 2002, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
SSP>RH can also afford to be sued.
IMHO, you're kidding yourself if you do believe they're consciously trying
to get sued by systematically ignoring licenses. They're a business and
businesses do not survive by actively looking for trouble(*).
Andr
On 9 Nov 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
TBB>This has been tried many, many times. Feel free to give it a shot
TBB>yourself!
>From your reply, I'm inclined to think the chances are slim ;-(
TBB>Of course we are legally allowed to distribute unmodified pine. But
TBB>Debian doesn't include
On 9 Nov 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
TBB>Pine prohibits the distribution of modified versions.
Fine, then ship an unmodified version. Just run configure with the
appropriate values, pack the resulting binary and we should all be set.
My understanding of the license is that that would be p
16 matches
Mail list logo
