On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 10:47:23AM +0100, Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > >On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 05:23:32PM -0500, Allan Streib wrote: > > > > > >>On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, David Zhou wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Pine is perfectly alright in that it's pretty easy to use. It's not > >>>free, but then again, the question didn't have free as a requirement. > >>> > >>> > >>Pine is free as in no cost. But it's not GPL. > >> > >> > > > >Well, pine is not free, at least it does not comply to the DFSG, and > >that is why it is shipping in non-free and not in main. > > > >I think the reason it is non-free, is that you have no right to > >distribute compiled binaries or something such, so the only thing you > >are free to ship are sources, and the user should compile it. > > > > > > > Modified binaries. So redhat compiles and distiributes, debian
Any debian package is a modified work, since you at least add the debian directory. Friendly, Sven Luther