I would personally still call it "Open Source" as the source code is
openly available (I think we're getting a bit spoiled as this alone is a
far cry from Microsoft world). If I'm reading their license correctly it
(the code) is also modifiable and can be redistributed under reasonable
terms. What
Matt Fahrner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I completely agree *if* possible. If anything will be Open Source's
> downfall it will be these sorts of forks and inablility to share the
> sandbox together.
Pine is not opensource software. It does not meet the OSD and Debian
shuttles it off into no
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Julie wrote:
>> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
>> distributed under is GPL compatible? In other words, would it be
>> possible to fork the program as a GPL'd work?
>
>You can't change the license for a software package unless you
>are the c
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Matt Fahrner wrote:
>Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:16:23 -0400
>From: Matt Fahrner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Subject: Re: PINE license.
>
>Julie wrote:
>I completely agree *if* poss
That is actually more the policy. Nothing is actually ever enforced and
we only "threaten" to not support them, in reality we end up supporting
just about anything in a pinch...
- Matt
Jason Fesler wrote:
>
> > I admit such forcing of specific tools sounds a bit draconia
> I admit such forcing of specific tools sounds a bit draconian, but
> otherwise we get into real issues trying to support too many varieties
Our company has a simple policy. "Here is what we use." No enforcement,
but also, no support, for anything else. You break something else, you
pick up y
> > under the owners license?
> >
> > You can only distribute patch files, and it looks like you can't
> > distribute modified binaries. Besides, the Pine license has been a
> > thorn in the side of many for years... better just to abandon the
> > package
eryone thinks
theirs is better and no one wants someone else to come along and mess up
their "art" (me included).
- Matt
>
> From: Mike A. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Red Hat Development List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Th
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Pekka Savola wrote:
> If the latest source code was available with e.g CVS, I don't think this
> would be much of a problem at all..
I agree absolutely - but unfortunately, it seems to be pretty much
impossible even to contact the maintainers about these things.
I'd agree t
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, JF Martinez wrote:
> Given that 64 megs of memory are under 100$ I think it is better to use
> an X-based mail reader and benefit of the time savings and
> fiunctionality you get with a windowed environmentAbout the only
> time you need a text-based mail reader ois when X
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Julie wrote:
> What's wrong with making your changes and distributing them
> under the owners license?
As you have noticed, pine is a very closely developed software. Only an
alpha team of about 30 people has access to pre-release versions. The
security "features" noted on
- Original Message -
From: Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 08:25
Subject: Re: PINE license.
> JF Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW I read french and I think your signature is offensiv
JF Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW I read french and I think your signature is offensive.
Sorry, it's randomized. I'll remove that entry.
--
Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors!
22 days, 2 hours, 10 minutes, 13 seconds till we run away.
"I am Ernest of Borg.
Alan Shutko a écrit :
> "Julie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What's wrong with making your changes and distributing them
> > under the owners license?
>
> You can only distribute patch files, and it looks like you can't
> distribute mod
"Julie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's wrong with making your changes and distributing them
> under the owners license?
You can only distribute patch files, and it looks like you can't
distribute modified binaries. Besides, the Pine license has been a
tho
"Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
> distributed under is GPL compatible? In other words, would it be
> possible to fork the program as a GPL'd work?
Not a recent PINE. There was an older version of Pine that RMS wan
From: Mike A. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Red Hat Development List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 23:19
Subject: PINE license.
> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
> distributed under is GPL compatible? In other
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
> distributed under is GPL compatible?
There are a couple of incompatibilities.
"Redistribution of this release is permitted as follows, or by mutual
agreement:
(a) In free-of-charge or
Anyone have a clue if the license that the PINE email software is
distributed under is GPL compatible? In other words, would it be
possible to fork the program as a GPL'd work?
I'm not happy with the number of vulnerabilities in it, and it
seems quite closed devel at the U of washington. I love
19 matches
Mail list logo
