On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 02:41:32AM +0000, Olivier Thauvin wrote: > I agree, maybe my explanation was wrong, strongly pine devellopers want to > keep the source "free", but they deny to redistribute binary. As I remember, > they encourage to make patch, but not want to see binary with patch.
It's free as in price. But it's not free as in freedom or libre. Unfortunately, English uses the same word for the two entirely different concepts. At least in this community the term free software should always be used in reference the the freedom/libre meaning not the price meaning. FSF refers to the rest as "freely downloadable" software. Which of course probably doesn't help with the confusion. *sigh* > In fact I do not understand their policy exactly. > Well, finaly, it can't be include in Mandrake tree ! That point is sure :( Well I live near UW and have asked people that work there that know people reponsible for it. The argument comes down to not wanting to support patched versions. They claim they will get support requests for patched versions where the patches are causing problems and will have no way of knowing the patch is even there. Pretty much a similar argument to djb and Theo's feelings about people messing with their software. -- Ben Reser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ben.reser.org Never take no as an answer from someone who isn't authorized to say yes.
