Pine wasn't open source either. That's why the Linux distros couldn't include it.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_(email_client)

"The University of Washington later modified their license somewhat to allow unmodified distribution of Pine alongside collections of free software, but the license still does not conform to the Open Source and the Free Software Guidelines so it is semi-free software, effectively proprietary software."

A-ha. Thanks, that makes sense.

I was just having a hard time getting past the idea that I'd never have had PINE working if I didn't have the source. :)

I'm sure what the poster meant was the Pico wasn't free/libre software.

edit:

> because Pico's earlier license was not a free software license, since distribution of a modified version of the code was ambiguously forbidden.

I meant open source, but same requirement to allow distribution of modified software appears in both the free software list of freedoms [1] and the open source definition [2].

1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

2. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated