As a student and an employee at the UW, it seems to me very unlikely that Pine will even be actively developed in the near future, considering the generally antagonistic attitude of the administrators (PHB's, so to speak) towards anything non-Microsoft, and more and more of the students, faculty, and staff use GUI mailers over IMAP or POP3 anyway.
As it is now, if you try to teach someone new to the UW to use a text-based program like pine, they recoil in terror. In a couple of years, any interest the UW has in maintaining pine will purely academic (no pun intended). What will happen when they decide to stop wasting their time? Since the license absolutely precludes anyone from taking over development, for all intents and purposes, Pine is already dead. -Brad On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 05:01:12PM -0700, Terry Gray wrote: > > > I hope the above comments help clarify UW's position. I reiterate our > > willingness to work with the Debian community toward a constructive > > solution. (But kvetching about the UW license terms isn't constructive.) > > The world, like software, is a dynamic thing. Conditions change over time. > Pine's license is a technical, legal document, an artifact of a brief > period in time; the DFSG, like any statement of principles, is meant to be > general and broadly applicable. It shackles no one to any particular > software license. I've given frank, constructive suggestions about ways UW > can work with Debian short of changing the license. I also think, > however, that the only way to radically improve Pine's visibility in Debian > is to change its license to one that is DFSG-compliant.
