In article <Pine.LNX.4.20.0002022132540.23011-100...@arpad.thegreen.private>,
Jeffrey Goldberg <J.Goldb...@Cranfield.ac.uk> wrote:
>Pico and Pine, the last time I looked, are about as close as possible toHow very rude since Pico is based on micro-emacs, which is perhaps a little
>being Open Source without actually being Open Source. Some argue that
>they are Open Source. The dispute -- which I don't think that anyone has
>anything new to say about -- has to do with restrictions on redistributing
>modified versions of the software. The UW license, the last time I read
>it, prohibits redistribution of modified versions. This has been the
>sticking point of a feud which I would prefer not to see reopened.
too open sourced (public domain, not GPL). This is a good reason to
copyleft your freeware.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.