Re: [MLUG] nano editor?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 4 Jul 2001, Michael wrote:

> My main interest in nano as it was suggested as a pico replacement by
> someone from the LinuxToday article on problems w/ pine/pico licenses.
> I'm a long time user of both pine and pico and they are okay tools but
> I am a firm believer in not using non-opensource tools (I would
> require all GPL/LGPL if it was possible.) so I am going to try to
> switch from pico to nano. I really don't care for mutt which was the
> main pine replacement suggestion but other than on the MLUG server I
> do tend to use Mozilla for my email which I think works pretty well so
> I guess I can live with myself again. :)


I don't know what the problem is with the pine/pico license, but they do
make the source available.  You can alter it before compiling.  I don't
know what their rules are.

Is pico not considered open source?  I'm near 100% sure that pico was
built from an early version of emacs, so doesn't that mean that pico has
to also be GPLed?

Mike

--
To manage your subscription, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/