In trying to compare Mutt to Pine I came across a discussion dealing with the Pine license. Some people think this is quite the evil little thing.

The creator of Nano says, on a page dedicated to this, "a license, I feel, that is as bad as anything that has ever come out of Redmond."
(quoted from here).

I read the Pine faq , I also read the opensource definitions and I'm not quite sure what I would call Pine.

What are your thoughts?

HC

Here's my thoughts:

1. Pine kicks a$$
2. Pico, well see #1
3. Pretty much, these are Open Source type programs, however to me it just seems like they want to be notified of the evolvation (is that a word?) of pine. I mean why would UW, and educational instiute, very well known, even be thought of as to act like "something else from these neck of the woods"?

Anyway as a brief summary, the products good, the owner/creator is just curious, and I don't mind telling them what I've done to "improve" or "evolve" their product.

Cool

Thanks for your reply MasterC.
I'd have to say I agree with you fully that Pine and Pico are very good programs.

I got the same out of reading the faq as you did: they developers want to be notified of any big changes people make. So it's a conditional opensource program

I wonder why some folks have such a problem with that though...

HC

Well, because it starts with innocent "curiosity", then leads to other restrictions which eventually lead to bigger, more painful restrictions. It's like a crack deal, your first one is free...



Cool

hahaha...and I got suckered into it.....cuz I can't do without my Pine now...*pets his Pine*

Should I get help?

HC