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

On 2023-04-27 02:54, Gur Telem 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?

Sure, however regardless of what they find, I'm not sure there's much 
legal value in the nano dev team saying "we're not going to pursuing 
Apple if they distribute modified binaries". As Benno mentioned, the FSF 
and he own the copyright for the work. We certainly do not control the 
actions of the FSF and their legal team.

Presumably Apple's lawyers would need to get clarification from the 
FSF's lawyers about whatever anxiety they have. I don't think anyone on 
the nano dev team cares in the slightest if Apple distributes nano even 
if it required minor required portability patches, but again legally 
that doesn't mean much.

Again, Apple can contribute patches upstream to which should ameliorate 
whatever legal ramifications Apple thinks come along with modifying 
nano's source and distributing the binary. They would presumably have to 
be willing to release /their/ contributions to the FSF under the teams 
of the GPL - again, a benefit of the license, not a downside - which 
they may be unwilling to do.

Interested to see if you are able to get a response from their legal 
about this.