Antonio Querubin writes:
..."
and various typical accountability/liability conditions follow. To me the intent seems that it's open source and modification and redistribution is allowed.
thats pretty funny...that you left out the specific bits of the license that actually matter....
Here's a question for you...is the license under which pine is distributed OSI approved? http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/
Now i'm not suggesting that an OSI approved license is necessary for fedora inclusion, because i don't know if thats true or not. But maybe... exactly how the pine license works and restrictions on it are subtle enough so that the mind-numbingly pedantic bits of the license that you didn't cut and paste to the list are not 'typical accountability/liability conditions' at all. I humbly submit that if the license is not OSI approved its got some subtle strings attached that make it problematic. I don't claim to understand those strings, and I doubt you do either. But you know...i bet this license has come up for OSI consideration in the past, and there is probably discussion archived on the OSI relevant mailinglists that you can research if you care enough to want to understand.
-jef"is perfectly happy to accept the fact that the pine license is not OSI approved and thus not acceptable"spaleta