Subject: pc-pine source?

From: Jamie Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:48:37 -0800 (PST)

Hello,

  Can anyone tell if uwash makes the pc-pine source available
  (4.3x).  I have searched the archive and cannot find the answer.
  I suspect that only *nix source distributions are available but
  would feel better if that would confirmed.

  thanks,

  Jamie

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 For information about this mailing list, and its archives, see: 
 http://www.washington.edu/pine/pine-info/
-----------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Eduardo Chappa <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:02:56 -0800 (PST)

*** Jamie Sparks ([email-masked]) wrote in the pine-info list today:

:)   Can anyone tell if uwash makes the pc-pine source available
:)   (4.3x).  I have searched the archive and cannot find the answer.
:)   I suspect that only *nix source distributions are available but
:)   would feel better if that would confirmed.

Yep, you are right. Unfortunately the source code for PC-Pine is not
available (not even without the speller that PC-Pine has included). I
guess we are all out of luck here.

-- 
Eduardo
http://www.math.washington.edu/~chappa/pine/

---

From: "Karl F. Larsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:14:57 -0700 (MST)

Eduardo, it's not too bad we don't have the win98 source code. I expect it
takes visual C compiler which I refuse to buy, since gcc is free and works
fine on unix pine sources.

What does amaze me is how well pc-pine works! My wife will not use Linux
because it's too dam complex. But she hates eudora and netscape e-mail. So
I installed pc-pine and it works fine and she is happy. I'm happy because
when she has a problem I just take my pine experiance to her computer and
do what's needed.

> guess we are all out of luck here.

Yours Truly,

  	 - Karl F. Larsen, [email-masked]  (505) 524-3303  -

---

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:40:48 -0800 (PST)

On 02/11/01 at 4:14pm -0700, Karl F. Larsen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I expect it takes visual C compiler which I refuse to buy, since gcc
> is free and works fine on unix pine sources.

You forget that the Pine developers started out with Unix Pine and only
later ported it to DOS and then Win32.  So I'll bet you they use gcc to
build PC-Pine just like they do for Unix Pine.

But either way, I believe PC-Pine's source code (or as much of it as
possible) should be made public just as the Unix Pine's source is.  I've
yet to hear of a good reason why the public portions of the code (which
wouldn't include the spell checker, apparently) couldn't be made available
so users could apply patches to PC-Pine and build customized versions.
Is it simply because no one on the Pine team has yet had the time to
seperate the public and licensed portions of the code?  Or is there a more
fundamental reason?  I'd appreciate any comments from the Pine team.

Thanks.
-- 
Scott Leibrand
[email-masked]            (Yes, that is a valid address.)
http://students.washington.edu/leibrand
* Opinions expressed are mine.  Everyone else can get their own.   :)   *
* RCW 19.190 notice: This email address is located in Washington State. *
* Unsolicited commercial email may be billed $500 per message.          *

---

From: Peter Daum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:06:56 +0100 (MET)

> fundamental reason?  I'd appreciate any comments from the Pine team.

Normally, I hate "me too" messages, but in this case it seems
appropriate. I have been subscribed to this list for quite a
while and seen this question beeing asked at least 5 times. As a
result, there usually were some postings from pine users
reporting various rumors about that issue (like the one about the
spell checker). Not a single time I have seen any reaction from
the Pine developers. It almost seems like they are deliberately
keeping this unclear ...

Dear Pine developers: *Please end these wild speculations*,
preferably not only by answering the question here, but also by
including a clear statement about this issue on the Pine web
pages and in the distribution!

Like many others, I personally would strongly prefer the source
code for PC-Pine to be public, but that's not the point. The way
things are, you have of course every right to do with your code
whatever you like - but it would be nice to let the users know,
what you are up to.

Regards,
                   Peter Daum

---

From: "Karl F. Larsen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:49:16 -0700 (MST)

Hello Scott, Yes I know there was a flap with Debian over the Free
Software aspects of Pine. I compiled version 4.31 for unix and looked and
I do have the source code as expected. The license had SUGGESTED ways to
modify the code and asked that you not export a version of pine.

The nice little windows bar above pc-pine is a pain to make with gcc and
is simply done with Microsoft Visual C. But you are a school, and someone
could learn a lot from doing it with gcc.

I think your right, pc-pine should include the source code. More so
because it's such a well done professional software for windows. I expect
the source may be compiled by Borland C. I do that. Write the source and
compile with gcc and make it work in Linux. Then compile in Dos with
Borland. If something like that is required, it's no reason for not
releasing the source.

Yours Truly,

---

From: James <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:24:08 -0800 (PST)

> so users could apply patches to PC-Pine and build customized versions.

Either way would be fine with me too.  In the unlikely event I had some
spare time, I'd like to be able to fix a few of the annoyances in the
version I use (4.21).  Things like not repainting the screen on expose
events, not responding immediately to quit commands, stuff like that.

I can't see why pine needs an internal spell checker anyway.  I never
use it: for those who do want such a thing, a link to an external
program ought to be sufficient, and would take care of the problems with
languages other than English, as was mentioned here a few days ago.

James