Subject: Re: pc-pine source? #010211@17:40:56.26192

From: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:10:48 -0800 (PST)

On 02/12/01 at 7:15pm -0800, Mark Crispin <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Sorry, you lost your bet.  We have always used the Microsoft C compiler to
> build PC Pine.  When the PC Pine work started, the choices were Borland
> and Microsoft.  Gcc wasn't ported to the PC until many years later.
>
> We generally use the native C compiler in any case.  On systems such as
> Linux (and my NeXT workstation), that means GCC.  On OSF/1 and AIX, it
> does not.

Good thing I didn't bet any money.  :)

But you seem to be ignoring the more important part of my question, which
basically was:  Why can't the PC-Pine source be released?  Are you
authorized to discuss that publicly?  If not, who is?  Or does it require
something like a Freedom of Information Act request to pry that
information out?

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: Scott Leibrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:05:50 -0800 (PST)

> something like a Freedom of Information Act request to pry that

My apologies for that FOIA remark.  While that would be a perfectly valid
method (legally) to obtain this information, it goes completely against
the spirit of openness and helpfulness of the Pine community, and I'm sure
it will be unnecessary.  I realize that there are lots of reasons why
technical people shouldn't be allowed to comment on legal matters, and at
Mark's suggestion, I've taken this issue up with the management of the
UW's Computing and Communications Department.  I'll keep everyone updated
as I hear back from them.

---

From: Edward M Greshko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:54:15 +0800 (GMT)

> as I hear back from them.

I find all of this very weird.

The folks from the Pine Team have stated at different times that the
source code for PC-Pine is not available for release to the public since
it contains embedded code whose copyright prohibits them from
distribution.

So, it matters not if the code is the spell checker, the sorting
functions, or a parser for the pinerc file.  I don't believe the folks at
UW have to disclose to you or anyone else the details.  You should be
joyous over the fact that some (probably commercial) company has given
(maybe) code to UW to include in PC-pine and hasn't demanded a royalty
giving PC-pine a price of $29.95.

FOIA?  Somehow I suspect that only applies to government documents...and
maybe only federal at that....

Geess....

-- 
Edward M. Greshko                  Technical Manager
                                   Syntegra Asia Region

---

From: James <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:53:52 -0800 (PST)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Edward M Greshko wrote:

> UW have to disclose to you or anyone else the details.

Of course they don't HAVE to do anything they don't want to, since it's
their product.  We're just trying to convince them that they SHOULD want
to, in order to have more happy users.

I know it's frequently been stated that they can't release the source
because the spell checker is copyrighted.  What I'm asking is why on
earth it needs to have a spell checker in the first place?  That's a
function that, IMHO, is much better done in brainware :-) The more so as
those who would want or need it thing are probably all using MS-Outlook
or some other program designed for the mentally self-handicapped.

I do think PC-Pine is the best mail program I've found for Windoze, but
it still has some pretty annoying problems.  The Pine development team
doesn't seem interested in addressing them, so it seems that the only
way they'll be fixed is for them to release the source.

James

---

From: Freda B Birnbaum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:52:46 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, James wrote:

[...]

> function that, IMHO, is much better done in brainware :-) The more so
> as those who would want or need it thing are probably all using
> MS-Outlook or some other program designed for the mentally
> self-handicapped.

I'm a pretty good proofreader but a pretty poor typist, so I'm grateful
for the spell-checker to catch inadvertent typos before I go on to
proofread... and the spell-checker won't get the difference between "to"
and "too" or "their" and "there" if you misused them, or made a typo that
was a real word in its own context, but it is a big help especially with a
large piece of writing.

Freda Birnbaum, [email-masked]
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

---

From: "Ed Greshko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:01:47 +0800

James,

> to, in order to have more happy users.

I believe they DO want to.

> function that, IMHO, is much better done in brainware :-)

Well, brain-ware is much more fallible in some individuals.  Not only that, I
know a fair amount (since I live in Taiwan) of non-native English speakers who
rely on spell checkers to a large extent.  They have had "nasty" experiences
with westerners, mostly Americans (of which I happen to be one), inferring and
directly telling them they are "stupid" because they couldn't spell.

(BTW, my spell checker couldn't find "brainware" and it wasn't in the Webster's
on my desk so you may want to consider a "-".  :-) :-) )

> The more so as

Or even those who happen to be handicapped by the requirements of the company
they work for.

> way they'll be fixed is for them to release the source.

The Pine developer's eventually get around to fixing things if you document the
problems and ask them nicely.  Problems are *never* fixed as fast as one likes.
In a large part I find the pine team much more responsive and open than software
developers that require payment for their products.  This includes both
commercial and shareware.

Try to keep some perspective.  Pine is *not* "open source".  As a matter of
fact, it is only through good graces that UW has shared pine and the source with
the general public.  The salaries of the pine development team is paid by UW and
the priorities of UW come first.

Ed