Pine and Pico Article

M. Scholz msperrin at u.washington.edu
Wed Jul 4 12:11:26 PDT 2001


yep. you're right.


So?

No, really. Nowhere in the University's mission statement does it say
"we are a part of the free software movement" to my mind, the issues
raised by this article are things I'd be concerned about if I were a huge
University distributing a product that everyone with a brain knows is from
my university. You don't want people modifying your program, and
redistributing it as "Pine" because if there are problems with the
product, it reflects badly on your school.

This is not a private citizen coding in his/her spare time. This is an
institiution.

On the debian issue, I haven't really paid attention to it. However, you
can still download the source and compile it, so I don't see a problem...
;)

OK, I'm done spouting off.

-Matthew Scholz
Where does Thinking end,
and Feeling ...

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Bradley Bell wrote:


> On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 11:47:26AM -0700, Justin Huff wrote:

> > > it's bad enough to keep debian from distributing binaries. you have to

> > > compile it yourself.

> > IMHO, Debian likes to make big deals about very small issues. Purity first

> > functionality later.

> > --Justin (A proud slackware user:))

>

> It might seem like a small issue, but debian isn't going to change its rules

> to accomodate the UW. That's great if slackware distributes a modified

> pine binary (for which they must have a special license from the UW), but if

> somebody else wants to make a "super-slackware" and redistributes slackware

> pine, they can be sued.

>

> -brad

>




More information about the Linux mailing list