-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Friday 2006-03-24 at 00:58 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
The "hows" is something I don't understand and don't care about much. I can not read and _understand_ licenses, anyway.
It's quite simple, actually. Pine is not OpenSource Software. It is not by the OSS definition of OSI [1] and hence, it is not OSS. The U&W license violates several OSS license criterias of OSI. [1] http://opensource.org/
(and it's only "opensource" when it complies with OSI's definition of OSS, it's not a matter of "how I call it" ;))
If you say so, I'll believe you O:-)
Read my original mail for more details: http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse/2006-Mar/0351.html
I did, days ago. Nevertheless, I still say that I can not claim to read and _understand_ licenses, any of them - not even GPL. It's over my head. The moment they start the legalesse, I drop asleep :-p
As I wrote in an earlier mail, it's not about being picky or "debianesque", it's just that SUSE Linux OSS is dubbed as being a 100% OpenSource distribution. And pine+pico are _not_ OpenSource. That's all. So either have U&W change their license (which I doubt, we won't be the first asking them to do so) or move pine to the non-OSS ISO.
As I said, as long as I can get it from SuSE somewhere, in the dvd, in another ftp tree, whatever, that's fine with me.
Jürgen, had any update on pine ? (seems we all agree that pico can be replaced by nano)
I haven't tried "nano", it is not included in S.9.3. I don't know if Pine can be compiled without pico, or if it is completely stand alone. - -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFEI0D9tTMYHG2NR9URAtjMAJ9895CY4aTj8uaB3nB2DxKNAPIJKACfRW1o Az9TcB/lLRau5n99WUt+DIM= =PgpY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----