Am I missing something, or is the current pine license (http://www.washington.edu/pine/overview/legal.html) ok for non-free? (The question has come up here again, and I don't see the things I used to point to in explaining the situtation. I'm also getting really tired of hearing people ask why debian doesn't have pine. They keep getting snitty when I tell them to use mutt. :-) Anyway, please look at that url before responding--this isn't the same license it used to be. Please cc me also, I'm not a regular denizen of debian-legal.
-- Mike Stone
