nano

commit 2d6f1bc896696bd070414ae575501e794d3af128
parent 6aec0d63639b859e3cccfd227c493c12cdd20b3d
Author: Chris Allegretta <chrisa@asty.org>
Date:   Sat, 17 Feb 2001 02:42:03 +0000

Slight update of FAQ for advocacy


git-svn-id: svn://svn.savannah.gnu.org/nano/trunk/nano@541 35c25a1d-7b9e-4130-9fde-d3aeb78583b8

Diffstat:
M
faq.html
 | 
35
+++++++++++++++++------------------

1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git 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.&nbsp; However, it is&nbsp; not
-considered truly "free" according to the <a href="http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines">Debian
-Free Software Guidelines</a>.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;&nbsp; So at a real nitty gritty level,
-these programs are not considered Free Software.&nbsp; 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>.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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>.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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>.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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