-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Pascal Bleser wrote:
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 ?
I still use Pine for all my work email and I would be quite upset if it
would be dropped. I don't care much about pico (as I use vim to as the
editor in pine), but pine is essential. No, Mutt is not an option for
me. And no, just because I use Thunderbird for my personal mail does not
mean it would be an option either.
Back when I was still the maintainer of Pine on SUSE Linux, I actually
approached the University of Washington about this - SUSE has an
explicit and written approval to distribute pine/pico as part of their
distribution.
If required, I can dig around in my old mail folders about it, but SUSE
should have a copy of this agreement, too.
Bye,
LenZ
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Lenz Grimmer