On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, Anthony Fok wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 1998 at 01:33:47PM +0200, Santiago Vila Doncel wrote:
> >
> > I contacted washington.edu and they really do not want binaries to be
> > distributed if they do not "approve" the patches *first*.
> >
> > If we do not have the freedom to apply whatever patches we like, including
> > security or bug fixes, without an approval from the University of
> > Washington, then we will have to distribute the patches without the
> > binaries.
>
> I wonder: Could we all band together and complain *loudly* but *politely*?
> ;-) This is very very frustrating, and it is giving both Pine and Debian a
> bad reputation.
You are right, it is.
> They are going to keep losing users if they keep this
> stupid "No patched binaries" thing up.
Again you are right.
I would like to try and express my concerns over this thread... how long
has it continued? 30-50 messages? I can see a definite trend. AROUND IN
B****Y CIRCLES.
My advice would be for the maintainer of the pine package, (or whoever it
was George is accusing of changing the interpretation of the copyright) to
answer George's question about why it was done, then make an announcement
about what he/she will do with the package. i.e. make a 'pine-src' or
something.
After that, please cease this amazingly stupid discussion. I can tell the
lot of you now, I am getting fairly fed up with the childish behaviour
associated with it.
Some of you will agree with me, most of you will probably not, that is to
be expected, so any flames will go straight to /dev/null.
Good night.
Michael Beattie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who can, do. Those who can't, don't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian GNU/Linux.... Ooohh You are missing out!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
