4 ms·

A bit strange, because as far as the history remembers, Nano was explicitly a fork of Pico, because of the license. [1] Strange how history rewrites itself. 1

A bit strange, because as far as the history remembers, Nano was explicitly a fork of Pico, because of the license. [1] Strange how history rewrites itself. 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_(text_editor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pico_(text_editor) EDIT : Quotes from Wikipedia `The GNU Project has a clone of Pico called nano which has been developed because Pico's earlier license was not a free software license, since distribution of a modified version of the code was ambiguously forbidden.[2] By default nano attempts to mimic Pico to replicate the environment users are used to. However it can be configured to offer mouse support, auto indentation, regular expression searches and even syntax highlighting making it more useful. Newer versions of Pico as part of Alpine are released under the Apache License.`

nailer 10y ago
Not much history rewriting or strangeness: pico wasn't open source, nano was open source. nano is still open source. Nothing has changed with this announcement except who own the copyrights to the open source code.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Pico was certainly open source; it was part of PINE, one of the older and more popular Unix mail programs.
  - RMarcus 10y ago
    I'm sure what the poster meant was the Pico wasn't free/libre software. edit: > because Pico's earlier license was not a free software license, since distribution of a modified version of the code was ambiguously forbidden.
    - nailer 10y ago
      I meant open source, but same requirement to allow distribution of modified software appears in both the free software list of freedoms [1] and the open source definition [2]. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html 2. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
  - nailer 10y ago
    Pine wasn't open source either. That's why the Linux distros couldn't include it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_(email_client) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_(email_client) "The University of Washington later modified their license somewhat to allow unmodified distribution of Pine alongside collections of free software, but the license still does not conform to the Open Source and the Free Software Guidelines so it is semi-free software, effectively proprietary software."
    - tptacek 10y ago
      A-ha. Thanks, that makes sense. I was just having a hard time getting past the idea that I'd never have had PINE working if I didn't have the source. :)

nailer 10y ago

Not much history rewriting or strangeness: pico wasn't open source, nano was open source. nano is still open source. Nothing has changed with this announcement except who own the copyrights to the open source code.

tptacek 10y ago
Pico was certainly open source; it was part of PINE, one of the older and more popular Unix mail programs.
- RMarcus 10y ago
  I'm sure what the poster meant was the Pico wasn't free/libre software. edit: > because Pico's earlier license was not a free software license, since distribution of a modified version of the code was ambiguously forbidden.
  - nailer 10y ago
    I meant open source, but same requirement to allow distribution of modified software appears in both the free software list of freedoms [1] and the open source definition [2]. 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html 2. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
- nailer 10y ago
  Pine wasn't open source either. That's why the Linux distros couldn't include it. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_(email_client) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_(email_client) "The University of Washington later modified their license somewhat to allow unmodified distribution of Pine alongside collections of free software, but the license still does not conform to the Open Source and the Free Software Guidelines so it is semi-free software, effectively proprietary software."
  - tptacek 10y ago
    A-ha. Thanks, that makes sense. I was just having a hard time getting past the idea that I'd never have had PINE working if I didn't have the source. :)