[CLUE-Tech] my beloved pine and pico

[Nate Duehr]

On Feb 5, 2004, at 12:11 PM, Mike Staver wrote:

> I'm trying to use Fedora Core 1 today... and I'm very disappointed to 
> see that Pine was dropped from the release due to some kind of license 
> dispute. (I swear, if all the liceneses would just get along, linux 
> would be sooo much better!)

Pico/Pine *always* had a licensing problem.  RedHat just never followed 
the licensing for years and years... Debian never let Pico/Pine into 
the main tree because the University's lawyers wouldn't bend and the 
license doesn't meet the DFSG, never has...

Sorry, I know this doesn't help you much, but I've always been 
surprised at the distros that include it... the license doesn't allow 
binary redistribution, if I remember correctly.  Debian always had a 
"install from source" package that would install the .deb for the 
source and a script that would build it properly for a Debian system... 
which of course, is generally retarded and stupid -- if the University 
would simply allow standard binary redistribution of packages built 
from their source... (sigh)...

Of course, qmail and all of Dan Bernstein's projects have the same 
problem in Debian... unless they got Dan to relent on that particular 
idiotic portion of his license terms... love his software, but he's a 
nut when it comes to the license...

Agreed that things would be "easier" if the licenses got along -- but I 
also appreciate that licenses are allowed to be as Free as the code...

Have you checked RPMFind?  I bet someone who didn't bother to read the 
Pico/Pine license (GRIN) has uploaded a binary RPM *somewhere* that 
will work!  ;-)

--
Nate Duehr, nate at natetech.com