On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:44:42AM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:33:18AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Well, there's nano -- and if you want the pine UI, most people recommend
> > > mutt with a .muttrc that contain
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:33:18AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, there's nano -- and if you want the pine UI, most people recommend
> > mutt with a .muttrc that contains pine-style keybindings.
> >
> > At least that's what I used when switching fr
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, there's nano -- and if you want the pine UI, most people recommend
> mutt with a .muttrc that contains pine-style keybindings.
>
> At least that's what I used when switching from pine to mutt...
Does that actually offer the "pine experience" thou
On Wed, 11 May 2005 03:33:41 -0400 Glenn Maynard wrote:
> I fully agree that we should cooperate with what copyright holders
> want, in general. What I remember, however, was that Pine was under a
> clearly Free license, and UW played word lawyer ("modify and
> distribute", was it?)
Yes, see for
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Also, if I recall correctly, there was a gnu project to write a pine
> replacement, but I don't know where that stands. Probably it's
> not complete because of a lack of development effort.
Well, there's nano -- and if you want the pi
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:28:29AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
> > retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
&g
On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to
> retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license
> is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
I don'
they are not in a hurry to fix. But the authors of Pine
> don't mind at all. They even have a page of links to third party ports [1]
> for heavens sake!
As the copyright of Pine is owned by UofW, and not the authors of Pine, their
opinion is--unfortuantely!--of little relevance.
In the p
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We don't distribute it because we follow the letter of their
> license which unfortunately doesn't match their intentions and even more
> unfortunately they are not in a hurry to fix. But the authors of Pine
> don't mind at all. They even have a pag
"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [was Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move]
>
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone
>> > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course,
[was Re: Debian AMD64 Archive Move]
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Just establish the non-free section and move everything over. If anyone
> > complains then just drop the package they're complaining about. Of course,
> > NO ONE is going to complain since they know we will
11 matches
Mail list logo
