On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 03:05:54AM -0700, Bruce Sass wrote: > > > Go on, please. > > > > It's non-free - you can't distribute modified binaries. > > That is where Debian placed the Pine source - who says so? > > > 'nuff said > > No.
Yes. Permission not given in a license is DENIED. When UW was asked about this, they indicated that binaries should either be built from pristine source or patches must be accepted by them or they don't want you distributing binaries and they would not change this practice. Requiring such evil things as gaining permission to distribute a modified binary makes the software non-free. In fact, Debian can't even offer a non-free package. It must offer only source, as is required with qmail. Trust me, pine is in non-free for a reason. If you don't like that reason I suggest you take it up with UW since they're the only one who can even begin to change anything. =< -- "I'm working in the dark here." "Yeah well rumor has it you do your best work in the dark." -- Earth: Final Conflict