Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx: Summary (Repost with a few typos corrected)

[mattack]

On Tue, 5 Oct 1999, Brett Glass wrote:

>Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 10:27:04 -0600
>From: Brett Glass <address@hidden>
>Reply-To: address@hidden
>To: address@hidden
>Subject: Re: lynx-dev Licensing Lynx: Summary (Repost with a few typos  
>corrected)
>
>At 10:20 AM 10/5/99 -0400, T.E.Dickey wrote:
>
>>-- the grapes are sour anyway.
>
>No; a few spiteful people have trashed them. But we will persevere without 
>their help.

Well, if you do create a general purpose browser that works on UNIX shells,
I hope you release it to the public, ESPECIALLY if it supports things that 
Lynx doesn't do, such as JavaScript, or things that Lynx doesn't do well,
such as render tables.

Heck, if the w3m browser did cookies and SSL and didn't have quite an annoying
interface (you have to ACTIVATE a text field to type into it), I'd use it
in place of Lynx.  But it doesn't, and I've seen no other worthy challengers
to Lynx (except the vague mention on slashdot.org a few months ago)..

But I, as mostly an end user of Lynx, don't have a strong attachment to Lynx
itself. If a better free text-mode browser comes out, I'll use it.  Heck,
even if yours is commercial, if it has a trial period and does some of those
things mentioned above, I would pay a reasonable amount for it.