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
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
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 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.
--
%%%
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
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
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
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
.
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
18 matches
Mail list logo
