On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 01:55:47PM -0700, Nick Moffitt wrote:
...
>
> From http://linuxmafia.com/debian/tips (and based on some
> suggestions by yours truly):
>
> pico can be emulated by a symbolic link to the simple editor "ae",
> which is really very close to pico:
>
>cd /usr/loca
Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Johnie Ingram wrote:
>
> > David> Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by
> > David> license agreements for incorporated libraries from third
> > David> parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI.
> >
> > Although the above trademark and co
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> Furthermore, there is NO clause explicitly forbidding distribution of
> modified versions
This is irrelevant. What matters is whether we are explicitly *allowed*
to distribute.
Copyright defaults to "all rights reserved".
--
%%
On Wed, Sep 29, 1999 at 01:18:43AM +0200, David Weinehall wrote:
> I suggest one of the guys on Debian-legal makes contact with UW and asks
> for their consent to distribute a Pine vx.yDebian binary. I do believe
> them to be pretty reasonable.
Or you could.
--
Raul
P.S. you made this suggestio
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 06:04:21PM -0400, Johnie Ingram wrote:
> David> Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by
> David> license agreements for incorporated libraries from third
> David> parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI.
>
> Hm, what happened to this text:
>
> Although the above
On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Thomas Schoepf wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> > Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine,
>
> No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement
> about distributing such modified versions. And "Redistribution of this
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, David Weinehall wrote:
> Thus we are free to distribute even a patched Pine,
No! Anyone is allowed to _locally_ modify Pine, but there's no statement
about distributing such modified versions. And "Redistribution of this
release is permitted as follows [...]" of course only c
"David" == David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
David> Redistribution of binary versions is further constrained by
David> license agreements for incorporated libraries from third
David> parties, e.g. LDAP, GSSAPI.
Hm, what happened to this
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Quoting Piotr Roszatycki:
> > BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution,
> > but I don't know is it legal?
> >
> > Will the pine return back to distribution?
> > Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me).
>
>
r distributions.
Dave Bristel
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:48:08 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Piotr Roszatycki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Debian Development Mailing List
> Subject: pine in other distributions?
&g
Quoting Piotr Roszatycki:
> BTW, other pine's version is a part of official RedHat distribution,
> but I don't know is it legal?
>
> Will the pine return back to distribution?
> Well, this is the mostly used mailer by my users (and me).
From http://linuxmafia.com/debian/tips (and based on
I'm a little suprised. I found pine package in redhat-contrib which
has a few additional patches. The most interesting is
pine4.10-qtcolor-0.1.patch.
pine.README.colours:
---
To turn on the "pretty colours" patch set the PINECOL environment variable to
true.
08/02/99
Simon Liddington <[EMAIL
On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:31:59AM -0700,
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > According to the past pine discussions, it seemed that Pine must be
> > distributed with its source. Is this correct ?
> > I couldn't read such restriction directly from Pine's CPYRIGHT.
> > The reason why I'm
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 04:20:20PM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote:
> I see.
>
> According to the past pine discussions, it seemed that Pine must be
> distributed with its source. Is this correct ?
> I couldn't read such restriction directly from Pine's CPYRIGHT.
> The reason why I'm asking this is
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 11:34:18AM -0400, Kikutani Makoto wrote:
> I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...).
>
> Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...)
> have Pine package ?
yes.
> If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian.
Either they break the
Kikutani Makoto wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 05:52:47PM +0200,
> Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...)
> > > have Pine package ?
> >
> > They have.
> >
> > > If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as
On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 05:52:47PM +0200,
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...)
> > have Pine package ?
>
> They have.
>
> > If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian.
>
> Indeed. Debian is know for
Kikutani Makoto wrote:
> I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...).
>
> Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...)
> have Pine package ?
They have.
> If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian.
Indeed. Debian is know for its maximum "pickyness" wrt cop
I'm sorry, Pine again (and again and...).
Does anybody know if other distributions (RedHat, slack...)
have Pine package ?
If they have it, I assume their license policy is not hard as Debian.
I know one Japanese company is selling Linux CDs which contain
a Japanese version of Pine.
In fact, the
19 matches
Mail list logo
