* Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000831 20:47]:
> If Debian decides to reject IMAPD and tells the U of W so,
> that will put some pressure on them to clarify the license.
> Otherwise they may prefer to leave it
> unclear in order to to "have it both ways".
I don't see why Debian (or GNU, or
* Jimmy O'Regan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000829 22:40]:
> ) But are there any features that
> ) mutt and slrn do not offer yet?
> How about "it's pine" ;)
No further questions. ;-)
> Problem is though, the discussion about the IMAPD license
> started with rms mentioning that the FSF had tried to
> r
2 matches
Mail list logo
