On 5/10/05, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the past, UW has (in my opinion) played deliberate word games to > retroactively revoke the Freeness of a prior Pine license, and this license > is clearly non-free *without* any such stretching or contriving.
I don't think the issue at that time was that they revoked the prior license, but that we generally try and cooperate with the providers of software. If someone doesn't want us working with them, why should we? Also, if I recall correctly, there was a gnu project to write a pine replacement, but I don't know where that stands. Probably it's not complete because of a lack of development effort. -- Raul
