--- Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The goal of Debian is to produce the best *free* OS possible, and > definitely not to accept silly no-modification license clauses > "so that we can distribute binaries in non-free".
Yes, although in non-free, we can only distribute the non-modified pine binary. The modified binary is not allowed by the license. > > There are a few reasons why a non-modified pine is not a good idea: > > *) We would not be able to fix any bugs in it, as we would be unable > to modify it at all. My purposed solution is to distribute another non-modified pine as a distinct sub-package name. "pine" : the modified pine "pine-orig" : the non-modified pine So, we can still fix bugs in the package named "pine", and leave the non-modified binary version in "pine-orig" for any users who don't want to compile the src themselves. > > *) It would hide the "real" pine even more. Heh, what is hidden? It will obviously has two distinct package name. > > *) The UW already distributes a debian package for pine. > > > The *real* problem here is the license of pine, and for that you > should complain to the University of Washington, not to us. > > The way pine is distributed in the debian ftp servers is not a secret, > it's documented in the Debian FAQ. > Hmm, sorry for that I haven't tried reading debian FAQ yet. Thank you very much. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
