On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:51:52AM +1200, Eaden McKee said: > > Nano > Instead of pico, which (I believe) requires installation of pine, nano > is exactly the same but without Pine, a friendly commandline text editor Not that it matters, but one could theoretically distribute pico alone in accordance with the license, but one would be in the same boat as with pine, to wit: You couldn't distribute binaries that incorporate fixes you'd made yourself, only patches. You couldn't put it on a distibution that was for sale at a profit, and included any proprietary software. As I said, doesn't matter, nano is GPL. > Pine/Pico > Useful for users who prefer pico as a text editor instead of vi. With this, you'd have to use pine-tracker instead. It's a Debian package that downloads and compiles pine. I recommend just staying away from the whole ball of crap and do nano. You yourself mentioned scripts to download non-free stuff; pine/pico are in that category. -- Shawn McMahon | Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, EIV Consulting | that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any UNIX and Linux | hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure http://www.eiv.com| the survival and the success of liberty. - JFK
Attachment:
pgpPzbBoYXjRS.pgp
Description: PGP signature