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

My 2centh worth.

It sounds like everyone is in agreement except the lawyers.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 3:43 PM Gur Telem <[email protected]> wrote:

> Afaik i don't think it’s a problem to distribute the changes we make.
> They're more afraid that the fact that something that is open source under
> GPL is distributed along with the binaries of the OS might be a problem and
> somehow may affect the entire code base.
> I’ll try to get the legal team to clarify but if the owners wouldn't
> cooperate I don't see how much help that would do.
>
> > On 27 Apr 2023, at 21:52, Chris Allegretta <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>