So, for instance, a GPL-licensed git client like GitUp[1] was fine to use, and didn't require clearance. You could totally also install a newer version of Nano if you wanted, too.
But, the rules _were_ somewhat vague and scary-sounding, so many engineers I worked with took the rules to mean "absolutely no GPL software under any circumstances".
What email is actually talking about is the option to bundle Nano _with the OS_, which Apple can't do with GPLv3 software. That's why for years, for example, macOS has had an absolutely ancient version of bash (before the license was updated to GPLv3), and switched to zsh in newer versions of the OS.
So, you could use any text editor you feel like, but if the project you are writing required a GPLv3 compiler, that would be a problem? That makes sense.
they could. they just don't want to