Re: pine in other distributions?
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote: On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote: Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine, No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement about distributing such modified versions. And Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows [...] of course only covers this release as provided from U. of Washington. As it stands now, we don't even distribute a binary Pine at all, if I'm not all incorrect, only the sources for (the outdated) Pine 3.96. Furthermore, there is NO clause explicitly forbidding distribution of modified versions; the only clause that mentions patches binaries is the one concerning Local modification. I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe them to be pretty reasonable. We'll still have to keep it in the non-free area, of course, as it's a BSD-style license, but... When did the BSD license change to non-free? From the Debian Policy section 2.1.1.: Example Licenses The ``GPL,'' ``BSD,'' and ``Artistic'' licenses are examples of licenses that we consider _free_. Ok... Sorry, I guess that was personal disliking of the BSD-license biasing my statement. :^/ /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker// Dance across the winter sky // \ http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao// Full colour fire /
Re: pine in other distributions?
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:04:21PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote: David Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by David license agreements for incorporated libraries from third David parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI. Hm, what happened to this text: Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution. Did something change? Have they seen the Light? They have made it so at this point you can distribute pine freely if you mark derived versions as such on CDs. Note they SPECIFICALLY say that you can do it on CDs. They never say you can do it elsewhere such as ftp, http, magnetic tape, zip disks, et al. This is clearly a stupid oversight on their part. It could be fixed if someone had the time to approach them. (I no longer do.) -- Joseph Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux developer GnuPG: 2048g/3F9C2A43 - 20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC 44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3 PGP 2.6: 2048R/50BDA0ED - E8 D6 84 81 E3 A8 BB 77 8E E2 29 96 C9 44 5F BE -- NEW YORK (CNN) -- Internet users who spend even a few hours a week online at home experience higher levels of depression and loneliness than if they had used the computer network less frequently, The New York Times reported Sunday. The result ... surprised both researchers and sponsors, which included Intel Corp., Hewlett Packard, ATT Research and Apple Computer. pgp5031KKbDmV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pine in other distributions?
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe them to be pretty reasonable. Or you could. -- Raul P.S. you made this suggestion on debian-devel, not debian-legal.
Re: pine in other distributions?
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote: Furthermore, there is NO clause explicitly forbidding distribution of modified versions This is irrelevant. What matters is whether we are explicitly *allowed* to distribute. Copyright defaults to all rights reserved. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% (John Cage)
Re: pine in other distributions?
Piotr Roszatycki wrote: On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Johnie Ingram wrote: David Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by David license agreements for incorporated libraries from third David parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI. Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution. Did something change? Have they seen the Light? Is it possible to redistribute modified binaries? ...do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works -- any and all modifications result in a derivative work. You can make local versions, you just can't give them to anyone else unless it's in the form of a patch. -- | Jeff Teunissen -- President, Dusk To Dawn Computing -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Disclaimer: I am my employer, so anything I say goes for me too. :) | dusknet.ddns.org is a black hole for email.Use my Reply-To address. | Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux http://dusknet.dhis.org/~deek/
Re: pine in other distributions?
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:55:47PM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote: ... From http://linuxmafia.com/debian/tips (and based on some suggestions by yours truly): pico can be emulated by a symbolic link to the simple editor ae, which is really very close to pico: cd /usr/local/bin ln -s ../../../bin/ae pico isn't it better to use jpico? (it is joe with pico keybindings, and comes quite close) -- --- | Radovan Garabik http://melkor.dnp.fmph.uniba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ fmph.uniba.sk | --- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
pine in other distributions?
I'm a little suprised. I found pine package in redhat-contrib which has a few additional patches. The most interesting is pine4.10-qtcolor-0.1.patch. pine.README.colours: --- To turn on the pretty colours patch set the PINECOL environment variable to true. 08/02/99 Simon Liddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution, but I don't know is it legal? Will the pine return back to distribution? Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me). -- Piotr Dexter Roszatycki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pine in other distributions?
Quoting Piotr Roszatycki: BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution, but I don't know is it legal? Will the pine return back to distribution? Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me). From http://linuxmafia.com/debian/tips (and based on some suggestions by yours truly): pine/pico: Debian does not by default install non-free packages -- those under restrictive software licences (although many are provided and available for installation). If you are a user of the pine e-mail client or the pico text editor that pine provides, please be aware that pine is non-free and therefore is not a default installation item. The U. of Washington's licence forbids distribution of pine/pico in binary form. This restriction is routinely violated by many GNU/Linux distributions, but not by Debian. (U. of Washington is aware of this licencing problem, but elects not to fix it.) You can thus install pine and pico (in Debian) by installing the pine source-code package and then compiling the programs. However, there's a better alternative. Just put the following script in /usr/local/bin as pine, and chmod it to 755 (executable): #!/bin/sh /usr/bin/mutt -F /usr/doc/mutt/examples/Pine.rc pico can be emulated by a symbolic link to the simple editor ae, which is really very close to pico: cd /usr/local/bin ln -s ../../../bin/ae pico -- ((lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x))) (quote (lambda (x) (list x (list (quote quote) x) -- A LISP quine written by Seth David Schoen +++ath
Re: pine in other distributions?
You may have noticed that the other distributions also have KDE included in them. Because of the license flaw, Debian does not allow KDE in main. Redhat and others include it because there is little chance of legal action against them for this inclusion. The same applies here, Redhat seems to include as many good packages as it can, but will also ignore any potential legal issues if the risk of a lawsuit is low. From a business standpoint, this is good behavior, but doesn't speak very highly of the morals of those who select what goes into their distributions. Dave Bristel On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Piotr Roszatycki wrote: Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:48:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Piotr Roszatycki [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Debian Development Mailing List debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: pine in other distributions? Resent-Date: 28 Sep 1999 20:48:12 - Resent-From: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ; I'm a little suprised. I found pine package in redhat-contrib which has a few additional patches. The most interesting is pine4.10-qtcolor-0.1.patch. pine.README.colours: --- To turn on the pretty colours patch set the PINECOL environment variable to true. 08/02/99 Simon Liddington [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution, but I don't know is it legal? Will the pine return back to distribution? Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me). -- Piotr Dexter Roszatycki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pine in other distributions?
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote: Quoting Piotr Roszatycki: BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution, but I don't know is it legal? Will the pine return back to distribution? Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me). From http://linuxmafia.com/debian/tips (and based on some suggestions by yours truly): pine/pico: Debian does not by default install non-free packages -- those under restrictive software licences (although many are provided and available for installation). If you are a user of the pine e-mail client or the pico text editor that pine provides, please be aware that pine is non-free and therefore is not a default installation item. The U. of Washington's licence forbids distribution of pine/pico in binary form. This restriction is routinely violated by many GNU/Linux distributions, but not by Debian. (U. of Washington is aware of this licencing problem, but elects not to fix it.) You can thus install pine and pico (in Debian) by installing the pine source-code package and then compiling the programs. This is incorrect. I quote: Pine and Pico are registered trademarks of the University of Washington. No commercial use of these trademarks may be made without prior written permission of the University of Washington. Pine, Pico, and Pilot software and its included text are Copyright 1989-1999 by the University of Washington. Use of Pine/Pico/Pilot: You may compile and execute these programs for any purpose, including commercial, without paying anything to the University of Washington, provided that the legal notices are maintained intact and honored. Local modification of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual agreement: In order to reduce confusion and facilitate debugging, we request that locally modified versions be denoted by appending the letter L to the current version number, and that the local changes be enumerated in the integral release notes and associated documentation. Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual agreement: (a) In free-of-charge or at-cost distributions by non-profit concerns; (b) In free-of-charge distributions by for-profit concerns; (c) Inclusion in a CD-ROM collection of free-of-charge, shareware, or non-proprietary software for which a fee may be charged for the packaged distribution. Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by license agreements for incorporated libraries from third parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI. The University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of individual patches to the Pine system. By patches we mean difference files that can be applied to the University of Washington Pine source distribution in order to accomplish bug fixes, minor enhancements, or adaptation to new operating systems. Submission of these patches to University of Washington for possible inclusion in future Pine versions is also encouraged. [legal blurp with disclaimers concerning functionality stripped] End of Quote Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine, as long as we apply an L at the end of the version#. Not too big a sacrifice, huh? We'll still have to keep it in the non-free area, of course, as it's a BSD-style license, but... I'd love to see Pine 4.10 (in a Debian-modified state that has the pretty colours patch + a fix for the VERY annoying bug that removes backslashes from signatures) /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker// Dance across the winter sky // \ http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao// Full colour fire /
Re: pine in other distributions?
David == David Weinehall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote: David Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by David license agreements for incorporated libraries from third David parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI. Hm, what happened to this text: Although the above trademark and copyright restrictions do not convey the right to redistribute derivative works, the University of Washington encourages unrestricted distribution of patch files which can be applied to the University of Washington Pine distribution. Did something change? Have they seen the Light? netgod _Anarchy_ Argh.. who's handing out the paper bags 8)
Re: pine in other distributions?
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote: Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine, No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement about distributing such modified versions. And Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows [...] of course only covers this release as provided from U. of Washington. We'll still have to keep it in the non-free area, of course, as it's a BSD-style license, but... When did the BSD license change to non-free? From the Debian Policy section 2.1.1.: Example Licenses The ``GPL,'' ``BSD,'' and ``Artistic'' licenses are examples of licenses that we consider _free_. Thomas -- GnuPG: ID=B0FA4F49, PGP2: ID=2EA7BBBD http://www.debian.org/debian/doc/debian-keyring.tar.gz
Re: pine in other distributions
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:34:18AM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote: I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...). Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...) have Pine package ? yes. If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian. Either they break the pine license or they distribute pine as compiled by pristine source, known bugs and all. Debian applies bugfixes and the license which accompanies pine---not Debian's restrictions but UW's---keeps pine out of even non-free. = Complain to UW about this if you like, but I suspect you'll be talking to a brick wall there. I know one Japanese company is selling Linux CDs which contain a Japanese version of Pine. In fact, the company is PHT Japan. Strictly speaking, their distribution isn't RedHat, but almost the same type distribution using RPM. makoto -- Kikutani, Makoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linux related only) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpqNFCVnpFeZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pine in other distributions
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 04:20:20PM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote: I see. According to the past pine discussions, it seemed that Pine must be distributed with its source. Is this correct ? I couldn't read such restriction directly from Pine's CPYRIGHT. The reason why I'm asking this is that the company is distributing (not selling) binary only CDs. No, we can't distribute modified pine binaries and the unmodified ones break policy and have bugs and lack features like maildir.. pgpRvkQa9EoJj.pgp Description: PGP signature
pine in other distributions
I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...). Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...) have Pine package ? If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian. I know one Japanese company is selling Linux CDs which contain a Japanese version of Pine. In fact, the company is PHT Japan. Strictly speaking, their distribution isn't RedHat, but almost the same type distribution using RPM. makoto -- Kikutani, Makoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linux related only)
Re: pine in other distributions
Kikutani Makoto wrote: I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...). Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...) have Pine package ? They have. If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian. Indeed. Debian is know for its maximum pickyness wrt copyrights and licenses. There is a pine-src package which will build a local pine.deb. Regards, Joey -- Unable to locate coffee, operator halted. -- Stefan Farsch
Re: pine in other distributions
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 05:52:47PM +0200, Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...) have Pine package ? They have. If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian. Indeed. Debian is know for its maximum pickyness wrt copyrights and licenses. There is a pine-src package which will build a local pine.deb. I see. According to the past pine discussions, it seemed that Pine must be distributed with its source. Is this correct ? I couldn't read such restriction directly from Pine's CPYRIGHT. The reason why I'm asking this is that the company is distributing (not selling) binary only CDs. makoto -- Kikutani, Makoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linux related only)
Re: pine in other distributions
Kikutani Makoto wrote: On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 05:52:47PM +0200, Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...) have Pine package ? They have. If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian. Indeed. Debian is know for its maximum pickyness wrt copyrights and licenses. There is a pine-src package which will build a local pine.deb. I see. According to the past pine discussions, it seemed that Pine must be distributed with its source. Is this correct ? I haven't looked at the copyright yet since pine is out of interest for me. From what I saw on the lists the copyrights fails at permitting us to distribute (modified) binaries. Generally speaking all .deb files contain *modified* binaries. That's why there is only a source package. Regards, Joey -- Unable to locate coffee, operator halted. -- Stefan Farsch
