[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]

Re: Debian folly?

On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 07:32:11PM +0800, Sanjeev Gupta merrily said:
> Only one?  Drat, we have to make it more cryptic ;-)

Heh, heh. I said I was curious about one thing. I am actually stumped by the rest of them.

> The Pine licence does not allow Distribution of a modified Source or Binary.
> To integrate into Debian, we have to patch a few things, like location of
> mail spool (/var/spool/mail , not /var/mail), etc.  There is also the issue

How does the RH dist coping with this then?

> This is slightly different from the Debian-kde1 controversy.  In general,

which is???

> BTW, there is a DFSG-compliant pico clone, called nano.  Available in
> Debian.

Actually, I wasn't asking how to use Pine. I use mutt. What I was
wondering is if  debian is so finicky about licences, why does it
include a completely binary Netscape ?


Sandip Bhattacharya 
sandipb @ bigfoot.com