Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Shasta.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!Shasta!linton From: linton@Shasta.ARPA Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: dbx distribution revisited Message-ID: <6447@Shasta.ARPA> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 23:31:01 EDT Article-I.D.: Shasta.6447 Posted: Mon Jun 24 23:31:01 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 06:32:58 EDT References: <2355@topaz.ARPA> Organization: Stanford University Lines: 43 I should clarify my response to Stallman's message about dbx distribution. I should also expand on my perspective on the legal domain of dbx source. I have written dbx almost entirely from scratch. There were a couple of places where I looked at adb source to figure how things were done (e.g., read a coredump), and one place (instruction disassembling) where I started with several hundred lines of adb code and modified them to work with dbx. The modifications included a substantial style change, as well as a few changes to type names and control flow. The resulting source hardly resembles the adb code. Since I neither understand nor particularly care about the legal issues involved, I have avoided worrying about whether this history makes dbx dependent on an AT&T license. My opinion is that my opinion on this issue doesn't matter, and if you care you should consult a lawyer. Now, other people are interested in whether dbx is AT&T dependent, and when I tell them the history they come to their own conclusions. I also tell them what I said above, that my opinion is they should get a lawyer's opinion (unless they decide it is AT&T dependent, which is certainly safe). When I told Stallman, he interpreted it to mean that dbx was not AT&T dependent, and that it could thus be freely distributed. That is certainly his prerogative, and I did not mean to say that he is wrong. In fact, I would be glad if he is right. The reason I objected to his first message is that I thought he made it sound like I wrote dbx completely independent of AT&T code and that I had said that dbx was public domain. I know that he does not believe either of these, and he meant to state his interpretation of the facts that I relayed to him. Unfortunately, the difference betweenand was not clear. Finally, I want to emphasize that I did NOT mean to say that Stallman is wrong in his interpretations, or that he purposely misrepresented my opinion. I understand how he reached his conclusions, and they are certainly reasonable. Do not take my refusal to support them as disagreement -- I simply don't have the expertise or interest to come to my own conclusions. Mark