mirrors/nano
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of git://git.sv.gnu.org/nano.git synced 2024-12-25 20:06:52 +03:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Slight update of FAQ for advocacy

Browse Source 
git-svn-id: svn://svn.savannah.gnu.org/nano/trunk/nano@541 35c25a1d-7b9e-4130-9fde-d3aeb78583b8
This commit is contained in:
Chris Allegretta 2001-02-17 02:42:03 +00:00
parent 6aec0d6363
commit 2d6f1bc896
1 changed files with 17 additions and 18 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

35
faq.html
View File

@ -521,34 +521,33 @@ of personal preference as to which editor you should use.  If you're
the type of person who likes using the original version of a program, then
Pico is the editor for you.   If you're looking for a few more
features and a 'better' license as far as adding your own changes (sacrificing
mailer integration and a little stability), nano is the way to go.</blockquote>
mailer integration and a little stability), nano is the way to go.
</blockquote>
<h2>
<a NAME="6.3"></a><font color="#330000">6.3. What is so bad about the PINE
license?</font></h2>
<blockquote><font color="#330000">Technically there is nothing "wrong"
with the U of W license for Pine and Pico.&nbsp; However, it is&nbsp; not
considered truly "free" according to the <a href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian
Free Software Guidelines</a>.&nbsp; The only real problem as far as I'm
aware as that there are limitations on the redistribution of programs based
on the Pine and Pico source.&nbsp;&nbsp; So at a real nitty gritty level,
these programs are not considered Free Software.&nbsp; This is why Pico
isn't distributed in binary form in debian, and hence one of the main reasons
nano was started.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font color="#330000">The U of W license for Pine and
Pico is not considered truly Free Software according to both the Free
Software Foundation and the the <a
href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian
Free Software Guidelines</a>.&nbsp; The main problem regards the
limitations on distributing derived works: according to UW, you can
distribute their software, and you can modfify it, but you can not do
both, i.e. distribute modified binaries.</blockquote>
<h2>
<a NAME="6.4"></a><font color="#330000">6.4. Okay, well what mail program
should I use then?</font></h2>
<blockquote><font color="#330000">Well, there is nothing stopping you from
using Pine with nano (or Pine with Pico for that matter).&nbsp; But if
you want to use programs that are considered Free Software, you may want
to look into <a href="http://www.mutt.org">mutt</a>.&nbsp; It is a full-screen,
console based mail program that actually has a lot more flexibility than
Pine, but has a keymap included in the distribution that allows you to
use the same keystrokes as Pine would to send and receive mail.&nbsp; It's
also licensed under the GPL.</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font color="#330000"> If you are looking to use a Free
Software program similar to PINE and emacs is not your things, you should
definitely take a look at <a href="http://www.mutt.org">mutt</a>.&nbsp; It
is a full-screen, console based mail program that actually has a lot more
flexibility than Pine, but has a keymap included in the distribution that
allows you to use the same keystrokes as Pine would to send and receive
mail.&nbsp; It's also licensed under the GPL.</font></blockquote>
<h2>
<a NAME="6.5"></a><font color="#330000">6.5. Why doesn't UW simply change