Okay, so a quick look into the ftpsite does show it's in the non-free tree, and although there is nothing clearly explaining why, some poking around the debian side indicates that they are not very happy with the UofW over this, however i still find this very odd.
Sources? On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Bates-Kobashigawa, Jun-Dai wrote: > The problem regarding Pine is that the University of Washington's terms > of use are that it not be distributed as a modified binary. Members of > the Debian community have specifically asked UofW if they can distribute > it as a debian binary package, and UofW said no. Thus, Debian's > solution is to distribute it as non-free source with a makefile (their > solution is also to tell everyone to use mutt). Pine, by Debian > definition, is not entirely free. > > J > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sach Jobb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:04 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [Bits] linux mpeg encoders recommendations > > > > > pine has problems as well. You have to compile it from source due > to > > > legal restrictions. > > > > Uh, that's sort of misleading. It's just that it's under two licences, > one > > of which, the GPL, is a little stricter than the other. No one is > going to > > get sued over it. > > > > sach > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bits mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.sugoi.org/mailman/listinfo/bits > _______________________________________________ > Bits mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.sugoi.org/mailman/listinfo/bits > _______________________________________________ Bits mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sugoi.org/mailman/listinfo/bits
