Pascal Bleser schrieb:
It's quite simple, actually. Pine is not OpenSource Software.
It is not by the OSS definition of OSI [1] and hence, it is not OSS.
The UW license violates several OSS license criterias of OSI.
[1] http://opensource.org/
Who says, that the power to define the term open
Who says, that the power to define the term open source is up to OSI
and not to UW or you or me? Of course, pine is open source, because
everybody can have a look into it. That a big part of other type of
open source developpers consider the license of pine not sufficient
doesn't change this.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
If you accept the pine licence as open source then windows is nearly open
source, after all the kernel source code is available to partners and some
academic institutions etc, but those with the source code would not be
able to redistribute modified versions.
Come
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:41:53AM +0100, Siegbert Baude wrote:
So today, the problem is just small, pine here or there. But it really
should be discussed What, actually is the goal of CD6? to prevent
future problems.
The goal of CD 6 is to have things on CD that do not fit on CD 1-5 from an
On Mar 24, 06 10:18:34 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The SUSE Linux OSS version is stated to only contain Open Source Software,
if this definition is to differ from the widely accepted principles
defined by the OSI or FSF then it would at least require a clear statement
as to what OSS does
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 11:50:37AM +0100, Siegbert Baude wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
If you accept the pine licence as open source then windows is nearly open
source, after all the kernel source code is available to partners and some
academic institutions etc, but those with the
The SUSE Linux OSS version is stated to only contain Open Source Software,
if this definition is to differ from the widely accepted principles
defined by the OSI or FSF
please do _not_ start a new discussion about the opensource
definition :-).
OSI and FSF are already enough. possibly we
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 02:33:53PM +0100, jdd wrote:
The SUSE Linux OSS version is stated to only contain Open Source Software,
if this definition is to differ from the widely accepted principles
defined by the OSI or FSF
please do _not_ start a new discussion about the opensource
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2006-03-24 at 13:52 +0100, Robert Schiele wrote:
Come on, *everybody* can see the source of pine, that is the meaning of
Open source is not only about _looking_ at the source. You might be satisfied
by looking at a Rembrandt image
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 05:04:28PM +0100, Carlos E. R. wrote:
I can not agree, sorry. Users are relevant. If we weren't, suse would not
exist. Maybe not eve Linux.
In case of licences, you have to look at the person who puts the licence
on the software. That is the developer, not the user.
On Thursday 23 March 2006 13:34, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Tuesday 2006-03-21 at 14:13 +0100, Lenz Grimmer wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
I understand that 'b' would apply to ftp distribution, 'c' to the dvd.
If it doesn't, SuSE/Novell can ask them (ie, mutual agreement).
This was actually
On Mar 23, 06 14:42:22 +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-)
I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to change
the code and release their changes to the public, there's still a problem
with
claiming that it's OSS.
I have tried to use mutt two or three times, but.. failed :-(
¿Why? I don't use neither Mutt nor pine, but I've tried to use them and I
think both are difficult. If you already know Pine I supose that acquire Mutt
skill isn't hard.
Even is possible I'm in wrong, of course... :P
I would
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 10:38:43PM +0100, Kunael wrote:
¿Why? I don't use neither Mutt nor pine, but I've tried to use them and I
think both are difficult. If you already know Pine I supose that acquire Mutt
skill isn't hard.
The problem with mutt is that if you are used to something else,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Thursday 2006-03-23 at 15:13 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-)
I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to
change
the code and release their changes to the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Carlos E. R. wrote:
The Thursday 2006-03-23 at 15:13 +0100, Juergen Weigert wrote:
That's fantastic! There is no problem then ;-)
I'm no licenses expert - but unless this approval allows SUSE users to
change
the code and release their
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Wednesday 2006-03-22 at 22:38 +0100, Kunael wrote:
I have tried to use mutt two or three times, but.. failed :-(
¿Why? I don't use neither Mutt nor pine, but I've tried to use them and I
think both are difficult. If you already know Pine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2006-03-24 at 00:01 +0100, houghi wrote:
The problem with mutt is that if you are used to something else, you
need to re-train yourself a bit. The correct way would be to addapt your
muttrc. I however can imagine that can be a bit over
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2006-03-24 at 00:58 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
The hows is something I don't understand and don't care about much. I
can not read and _understand_ licenses, anyway.
It's quite simple, actually. Pine is not OpenSource Software.
It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Carlos E. R. wrote:
I understand that 'b' would apply to ftp distribution, 'c' to the dvd. If
it doesn't, SuSE/Novell can ask them (ie, mutual agreement).
This was actually what I did when I was still maintaining Pine. SUSE has
an explicit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Monday 2006-03-20 at 02:34 +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
Quoting Benjamin: it doesn't allow redistribution of modified versions,
and redistribution of the unmodified versions is only for inclusion in
non-profit things or by prior inclusion.
I
On Sunday 19 March 2006 19:34, Pascal Bleser wrote:
How about dropping them from the distribution ?
pico can be replaced by GNU nano (that is already included in the
distribution btw), and pine.. well... anyone still use pine ? (hint:
use mutt ;))
I use it every day.
--
But not on this message. :)
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
On 3//1.8.219/06, Glenn Holmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 19 March 2006 19:34, Pascal Bleser wrote:
How about dropping them from the distribution ?
pico can be replaced by GNU nano (that is already included in the
distribution
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:34:21AM +0100, Pascal Bleser wrote:
(sorry for cross-posting, but not really sure whether this is purely a
packaging matter or if it should be discussed in the hallroom)
On IRC, Benjamin Weber pointed me to some odd situation about the pico
and pine packages.
24 matches
Mail list logo
