> > I'm not arguing against the UW and the way they are handling pine, just > > pointing out the pitfalls and trying to explain the reluctance others > > have about using it. It's almost an economic certainty that those who > > don't have the protection of GPL will eventually get bit. > > That's making a pretty big assumption. As I wrote above, pine is past > its saleable prime. Yes, it's a damn good piece of software, but it's > not beyond being replicated by another team (I'm sure people would > take that dog of a software, mutt and do something good with it if > pine were to disappear). CuSeeMe was a trailblazer at its time and
And, I think the reason noone has replicated pine yet (unlike pico vs. nano) is that it's not *that* simple (vs. pico) to do and pine is an excellent piece of software vs. the other OSS mailers that exist (mutt is a dog as far as usability is concerned) (and, of course, developing for a CLUI is not sexy). Eric. _______________________________________________ yellowdog-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.terrasoftsolutions.com/mailman/listinfo/yellowdog-general HINT: to Google archives, try '<keywords> site:terrasoftsolutions.com'
