Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!pollux!attctc!chasm From: chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: C-News on Minix? Summary: FSF is OK, but beware the GNU-fanatics! Message-ID: <9498@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Date: 27 Sep 89 14:14:38 GMT References: <24898@louie.udel.EDU> Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 78 In article <24898@louie.udel.EDU>, Leisner.Henr@xerox.com (marty) writes: > Lars Fisher (fischer@iesd.auc.dk) sez: > [ > Which should not keep *us* from using GNU products. GNU products are > in general of a very high quality, and GNU AWK is a very fine product > indeed. If P-H bails out near GNU AWK (:-), shame on them! This is true, or at least I believe it to be, don't some companies (NeXT? Sun?) ship some FSF software with their systems? As I understand it, the public license prohibits P-H from using GCC or BISON to build software not distributed in source form (that is, the C compiler, unless you consider the ACK output to be source ;^), but the sources to emacs (yuk, yuk, yuk), AWK and so forth should be no problem. P-H would just have to disclaim copyright control over that part of the distribution -- say, put it on an seperate set of diskettes to make housekeeping easier. It does add to the "bulk" problem, though. > . . . > ] > I agree totally with Lars. I don't understand what the problem is with P-H > -- the GPL (Gnu Public License) seems clear enough as far as distribution > requirements go. > > The GNU tools tend to be bigger than the equivalent Minix tools but they > work and they're of exceedingly high quality (I use them on Sun386i, Sun/4 > and the ones that fit under Ms/Dos). I would agree, if you leave out the debugger and make (can't get either to work RIGHT under 386/ix -- make refuses to do anything with the gnu-emacs make file!). > I can't believe there isn't a reasonable way for P-H and FSF to work > something out. I remember the initial version of Bawk many years ago -- I > couldn't get it to do anything. Really, I have stopped giving out any changes I make to FSF products because there is one major problem with doing so -- the junior lawyers on the circuit will distroy you if you do anything wrong (inadvertently) or if you do anything they disagree with. I posted a set of minor changes to gnu-grep early this year (for MSDOS) as a set of cdiffs, and later, in response to requests from several poeple, I posted the executable. For weeks, I was berated for not posting the full source (a deliberate decision: the patches were 300-400 lines, the source is at least 10 times that), and for not posting the COPYING file with my patches and executables (inadvertent omission). I WILL NEVER DO THAT AGAIN! The threat of jail is nowhere near as fearful as that of flamage ;^)!!! > The alternative is going to be a plethora of versions of programs (which > I'm beginning to see). Perhaps, but they may really be better. The old v7_make and its successors seem much more functional than gnumake 3.05 (and is much smaller, too). I would be glad to post it, when I find out why it doesn't run the gnuemacs makefile either! > A large percentage of GNU tools come with excellent documentation (I > learned awk from the gawk manual, the gnu make document is great). But > there's a price -- 100 page manuals in machine readable format take up > space. And take my comments about gnumake with a grain of salt -- I am really hard on some programs, and so is Stallman's emacs! > marty > ARPA: leisner.henr@xerox.com > GV: leisner.henr > NS: leisner:wbst139:xerox > UUCP: hplabs!arisia!leisner =========================================================================== Charles Marslett STB Systems, Inc. <== Apply all standard disclaimers Wordmark Systems <== No disclaimers required -- that's just me chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us