It would appear that on Apr 5, duncan brown did say: > pine is not released under the GPL but under an extremely restrictive > license, which is what (from what i understand) keeps it from being > installed from the fedora cds. i havn't tried in about 4+ years, so it > has probably changed, but from what i remember pine and pico (come in the > same tar) are extremely difficult to compile. > > i did a quick google for "pine fedora apt" and the second link was: > > http://dag.wieers.com/packages/pine/ > > so, there you go... install the pine from dag's repository and your > life will be easier. i have no idea how reputable the repository is, but > i've heard alot of good things about it. > Too bad about that. (the restrictive license) But from what I understand of it it is at least, free to use... I don't know about source tarballs, (I doubt I'd even attempt to compile it) But pico has been in the same "package" as pine with every distro I ever tried... Though I don't really care about pico because I use vim to compose with. Somebody else suggested dag's rpm too. And it's already downloaded and "installed" [ though not yet tested, I only just got as far as setting up my user account(s) on it.] Thank you! for explaining why it's not "IN" the Fedora cd's... -- | --- ___ | <0> <-> Joe (theWordy) Philbrook | ^ J(tWdy)P | ~\___/~ <<jtwdyp@xxxxxxxx>>
