-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
(sorry for cross-posting, but not really sure whether this is purely a
packaging matter or if it should be discussed "in the hallroom")
On IRC, Benjamin Weber pointed me to some odd situation about the "pico"
and "pine" packages.
They're part of the SUSE Linux OSS distribution but their license is not
even near something OSI approved (not even to mention FSF).
Quoting Benjamin: "it doesn't allow redistribution of modified versions,
and redistribution of the unmodified versions is only for inclusion in
non-profit things or by prior inclusion".
Also read:
http://www.nano-editor.org/dist/v1.2/faq.html#6.2
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-07-02-025-21-OP-CY-DB&tbovrmode=1
Comparing that to the OSI open source definition:
"The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software."
Also violates this one: "The license must not place restrictions on
other software that is distributed along with the licensed software."
And that one: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or
giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software
distribution containing programs from several different sources."
How about dropping them from the distribution ?
pico can be replaced by GNU nano (that is already included in the
distribution btw), and pine.. well... anyone still use pine ? (hint: use
mutt ;))
What do you think ?
NB: thanks to Benjamin for collecting all that data, I'm just
transmitting ;)
cheers
- --
-o) Pascal Bleser http://linux01.gwdg.de/~pbleser/
/\\