From 2d6f1bc896696bd070414ae575501e794d3af128 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Allegretta <chrisa@asty.org> Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:42:03 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Slight update of FAQ for advocacy git-svn-id: svn://svn.savannah.gnu.org/nano/trunk/nano@541 35c25a1d-7b9e-4130-9fde-d3aeb78583b8 --- faq.html | 35 +++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/faq.html b/faq.html index ab305d7c..0d532257 100644 --- a/faq.html +++ b/faq.html @@ -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 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 -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> <a NAME="6.3"></a><font color="#330000">6.3. What is so bad about the PINE license?</font></h2> -<blockquote><font color="#330000">Technically there is nothing "wrong" -with the U of W license for Pine and Pico. However, it is not -considered truly "free" according to the <a href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian -Free Software Guidelines</a>. The only real problem as far as I'm -aware as that there are limitations on the redistribution of programs based -on the Pine and Pico source. So at a real nitty gritty level, -these programs are not considered Free Software. This is why Pico -isn't distributed in binary form in debian, and hence one of the main reasons -nano was started.</font></blockquote> +<blockquote><font color="#330000">The U of W license for Pine and +Pico is not considered truly Free Software according to both the Free +Software Foundation and the the <a +href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian +Free Software Guidelines</a>. The main problem regards the +limitations on distributing derived works: according to UW, you can +distribute their software, and you can modfify it, but you can not do +both, i.e. distribute modified binaries.</blockquote> <h2> <a NAME="6.4"></a><font color="#330000">6.4. Okay, well what mail program should I use then?</font></h2> -<blockquote><font color="#330000">Well, there is nothing stopping you from -using Pine with nano (or Pine with Pico for that matter). But if -you want to use programs that are considered Free Software, you may want -to look into <a href="http://www.mutt.org">mutt</a>. It is a full-screen, -console based mail program that actually has a lot more flexibility than -Pine, but has a keymap included in the distribution that allows you to -use the same keystrokes as Pine would to send and receive mail. It's -also licensed under the GPL.</font></blockquote> +<blockquote><font color="#330000"> If you are looking to use a Free +Software program similar to PINE and emacs is not your things, you should +definitely take a look at <a href="http://www.mutt.org">mutt</a>. It +is a full-screen, console based mail program that actually has a lot more +flexibility than Pine, but has a keymap included in the distribution that +allows you to use the same keystrokes as Pine would to send and receive +mail. It's also licensed under the GPL.</font></blockquote> <h2> <a NAME="6.5"></a><font color="#330000">6.5. Why doesn't UW simply change -- GitLab