[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: Debian folly?
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 07:57:44PM +0530, Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
>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?
Its not it include cygnus<-- or whatever that shit is
And totally closed source Real Player Remember.
RH is no different from any closed source expensive s/w sellin ppl
>> This is slightly different from the Debian-kde1 controversy. In general,
QT was not GPL orThe QT Licence is not respected by GNU.
>> BTW, there is a DFSG-compliant pico clone, called nano. Available in
>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 ?
No it does not include
What it does is netscape 3 which is a more relaxed liscence I belive.
---end quoted text---
I don't care where I sit as long as I get fed.
-- Calvin Trillin
Pankaj Kaushal <pankaj@xxxxxxx>
Proud to use GNU <www.gnu.org>