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