On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Terry Gray wrote: [snip] > One difference between sharing patch files vs. redistributing the > resulting binaries is that the ultimate user or site administrator will > tend to be more conscious of what is "standard Pine" vs. "modified Pine" > if they go through the process of applying patches themselves. Perhaps > the more fundamental point is that without the requirement to get > permission before redistributing modified binaries, UW essentially gives > up all claim of change control. I take your question to imply that our > position would be more "consistent" if we required everyone under all > circumstances to ask permission before they could modify Pine in any way, > but that isn't where we wanted to be on the change control continuum. > Again, we want to enable end-users and site administrators to make changes > necessary for their environment without any hassle about permissions... > while at the same time retaining some modicum of change control over Pine > as it flows throughout cyberspace. (Some people consider this desire to > be unreasonable; we do not.)
You are, of course, free to do this. However, because of this policy, I have suggested that our local users switch to mutt, which is a suitable alternative that does not require our administrators to recompile every update themselves. It is your choice as to whether you want Debian to ship your program. I would suggest that you release a version that complies with the DFSG, but I am confident that "free" alternatives such as mutt will prove to be satisfactory in either case. Thanks. Syrus. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Syrus Nemat-Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> UCSD Physics Dept.