Re: Please release nano under less restrictive license so we can use it

Thank you for your response,
AFAIK Apple makes some minor changes to the source. I don't think that distributing the changes is the issue.
When I asked the same questions, the answers I got was that distributing the GPL software along with the OS as a binary may legally require the entire OS to be open sourced.
I personally don't understand how that is possible, my understanding is that if we disclosure all the changes made to a source code, we can freely distribute it along with proprietary binaries with no issues.
Indeed the requirement comes from lawyers but maybe I can get someone to talk to and understand exactly what the issue is and then get proper approval to go back to nano.
I simply hate Pico. Keeps hard wrapping lines which breaks every file I edit.

If I get the legal team to detail exactly what bothers them so much, would you be willing to work with us on getting nano back in the system without risking the need to open source the entire OS?



Gur Telem
[email protected]



> On 25 Apr 2023, at 20:35, Chris Allegretta <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On 2023-04-25 10:50, Gur Telem wrote:
>> Hi there,
>> I'm not speaking for the company, just myself and a few other angry
>> users on the internet.
>> Apple can't use nano because it's licensed as GPLv3 we are stuck in
>> the stone age using Pico.
>> If possible to make nano with less restrictive license like MIT or
>> even Apache it would go a long way to help us integrate nano into the
>> system and allow users to get the proper experience with a good and
>> friendly editor (that doesn't attract a bunch of memes of people not
>> being able to exit it).
> 
> [Benno is the maintainer now but I'm still going to butt in]
> 
> Hmm, I've been curious why Apple switched back to Pico. I'm sorry they seem to have declared war on GPL software, but this seems to be recent revelation. For years OS X distributed nano with seemingly no issues. What changed?
> 
> I'm genuinely interested in what Apple things they are on the hook for. Is it that if they make changes to the nano source code they would have to disclose them back to us? Too bad if so, that's the entire REASON Free and Open Source Software is so successful.
> 
> AFAIK nothing has changed whatsoever regarding the responsibilities on Apple for distributing nano as a binary. What's likely to have changed is whatever guidance their lawyers are providing.
> 
> Has Apple tried submitting patches to the project such that nano builds without any required patching on their OS? The burden of distributing a GPL binary is VERY low as far as I'm aware. It seems to be the Tech companies now (not just Apple) make all decisions based on the advice of lawyers, and not actual developers.
> 
> Sorry that this is probably not what you want to hear, but I don't foresee the situation getting better any time soon.
>