Package requests wishlist - pine

[Rex Dieter]

Per Bjornsson wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 11:06, Rex Dieter wrote:
> 
> 
>>OTOH, I guess it all boils down to fedora.redhat.com's definition of 
>>"open source", as referred to in point 2 on:
>>http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
>>If pine's license doesn't meet this definition, then I would have to 
>>concede that pine has no place in in Fedora.
> 
> 
> See, that's exactly the point. The Open Source Definition from OSI (see
> specifically point 3 about derived works) - as far as I know pretty much
> the authoritative source on this issue:
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

I don't care what opensource.org's definition is.  Well, OK,  I *do* 
care, but that's not the point I was trying to make.

The point I wanted to make is this:  What is *redhat/fedora*'s 
definition of Open Source?  I have yet to see any authoritative 
reference.  Until I see one, I would argue that there exists enough 
ambiguity to include pine.  For example, UW's site claims pine is 
opensource.

-- Rex