ariadne
/
smol
2
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Slight update of FAQ for advocacy 

git-svn-id: svn://svn.savannah.gnu.org/nano/trunk/nano@541 35c25a1d-7b9e-4130-9fde-d3aeb78583b8
master
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 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 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 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> <h2>
<a NAME="6.3"></a><font color="#330000">6.3. What is so bad about the PINE <a NAME="6.3"></a><font color="#330000">6.3. What is so bad about the PINE
license?</font></h2> license?</font></h2>
<blockquote><font color="#330000">Technically there is nothing "wrong" <blockquote><font color="#330000">The U of W license for Pine and
with the U of W license for Pine and Pico.&nbsp; However, it is&nbsp; not Pico is not considered truly Free Software according to both the Free
considered truly "free" according to the <a href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian Software Foundation and the the <a
Free Software Guidelines</a>.&nbsp; The only real problem as far as I'm href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian
aware as that there are limitations on the redistribution of programs based Free Software Guidelines</a>.&nbsp; The main problem regards the
on the Pine and Pico source.&nbsp;&nbsp; So at a real nitty gritty level, limitations on distributing derived works: according to UW, you can
these programs are not considered Free Software.&nbsp; This is why Pico distribute their software, and you can modfify it, but you can not do
isn't distributed in binary form in debian, and hence one of the main reasons both, i.e. distribute modified binaries.</blockquote>
nano was started.</font></blockquote>
<h2> <h2>
<a NAME="6.4"></a><font color="#330000">6.4. Okay, well what mail program <a NAME="6.4"></a><font color="#330000">6.4. Okay, well what mail program
should I use then?</font></h2> should I use then?</font></h2>
<blockquote><font color="#330000">Well, there is nothing stopping you from <blockquote><font color="#330000"> If you are looking to use a Free
using Pine with nano (or Pine with Pico for that matter).&nbsp; But if Software program similar to PINE and emacs is not your things, you should
you want to use programs that are considered Free Software, you may want definitely take a look at <a href="http://www.mutt.org">mutt</a>.&nbsp; It
to look into <a href="http://www.mutt.org">mutt</a>.&nbsp; It is a full-screen, is a full-screen, console based mail program that actually has a lot more
console based mail program that actually has a lot more flexibility than flexibility than Pine, but has a keymap included in the distribution that
Pine, but has a keymap included in the distribution that allows you to allows you to use the same keystrokes as Pine would to send and receive
use the same keystrokes as Pine would to send and receive mail.&nbsp; It's mail.&nbsp; It's also licensed under the GPL.</font></blockquote>
also licensed under the GPL.</font></blockquote>
<h2> <h2>
<a NAME="6.5"></a><font color="#330000">6.5. Why doesn't UW simply change <a NAME="6.5"></a><font color="#330000">6.5. Why doesn't UW simply change