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

They cover stuff like this in the first semester of a software law class, I
am sure it's not a misinformed lawyer issue.
Per the GPL3 license Apple still needs to release any changes it makes to
Nano's code (maintain a link to the source).
There is certainly no legal requirement to open source the entire OS that's
a silly notion.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html

Cheers
Stephen

On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 11:54 PM Gur Telem <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>