Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ]
> /*
> * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
> */
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > On 14-Jun-99, 07:48 (CDT), Adam Rogoyski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >The copyright for Pine and Pico has be
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 at 02:29, Chris Lawrence wrote about "Re: Editor and...":
> That and the "local modification" business is a bit goofy; perhaps
> they should consider a "you modify it, you change the name" policy
> (i.e. you can't call a modified Pine "UW Pine" or "UW PC/Pine"). That
> would a
On Jun 15, Brock Rozen wrote:
> To clear up any confusion, the Pine (as such, pico; I believe) license has
> changed and that might make it eligible to be taken out of "non-free".
A number of problems have been discussed on -legal relative to it;
most notably, that you can put it on a CD-ROM but n
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 05:38:27PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I thought that at first, however the above appear to be OR'd, not AND'd.
> > In that case (a) and (b) apply to our ftp sites, (c) seems to apply to
> > anybody's distribution of Debian on cdrom.
>
> The problem I have is not AND
On 14-Jun-99, 15:14 (CDT), Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /*
> * Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
> */
posted to -legal only --sg :-)
> On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > | Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows,
> > | or
/*
* Doing my best to get this moved to -legal
*/
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 02:17:11PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 14-Jun-99, 07:48 (CDT), Adam Rogoyski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The copyright for Pine and Pico has been updated on June 2nd and seems
> > less restrictive, http://www
id Starner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 7:55 AM
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org; debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Editor and sensible-editor
At 07:48 AM 6/14/99 -0500, Adam Rogoyski wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
>> Not even. pico
David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The copyright for Pine and Pico has been updated on June 2nd and seems
> >less restrictive, http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html.
> >Does it still fail the Debian Free Software guidelines?
> Definetly. "Redistribution of this release i
At 07:48 AM 6/14/99 -0500, Adam Rogoyski wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
>> Not even. pico CANNOT be packaged for Debian! The best that can be done
>> is offer the source and let you build it yourself.
>>
>> To be blunt: Tough. Convince UW to make pico free software and get
9 matches
Mail list logo
