wahl@sunybcs.UUCP (Norman Wahl) (06/02/85)
It's frustrating to have to use several different editors for different
terminals, different computers and different purposes. After spending the
day using vi, then ed, then a lisp editor, then a Cyber line editor, it's
embarrassing to volunteer to help your relatives type their term papers on
your home micro and then not remember the first thing about how to use it.
In thinking about what would be a good home word processing program,
then, I realized that if vi were implemented for micros, this problem would be
solved. Also, vi is simply an excellent editor in its own right.
Does anyone know:
-Is it legal to create a micro editor which has the same command
formats (or, realistically, a good subset thereof) as vi?
-Has it been done, commercially or privately, and for which micro(s)?
I'm interested in getting one, or writing one, for the Apple ][+ myself.
I'll summarize mail responses to the net, if warranted. Thanks.
Norm Wahl
University of Buffalogwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (06/02/85)
There is no legal problem with creating a micro "vi" so long as you do not use licensed source code to do so. Manx Software Systems (the Aztec C people) have a vi-compatible editor for the Apple II. I think their HQ is in Shrewsbury, NJ; they advertise in some of the micro mags.
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (06/03/85)
> It's frustrating to have to use several different editors for different > terminals, different computers and different purposes. [...] > Norm Wahl > University of Buffalo You might consider JOVE, a public domain version of the EMACS editor, which runs on the IBM PC under MS-DOS and 4.2bsd Unix, at least. I have not used it on 4.2bsd (yet) but it works well on the PC. It's large (ca. 100K) but far smaller than the PD EMACS from the GNU project, which is the full-blown version. Keyboard bindings are arbitrary in JOVE, but it lacks extensibility and LISP support ... in my view, an excellent tradeoff for size. -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
gus@Shasta.ARPA (06/04/85)
> > It's frustrating to have to use several different editors for different > terminals, different computers and different purposes. After spending the > day using vi, then ed, then a lisp editor, then a Cyber line editor, it's > embarrassing to volunteer to help your relatives type their term papers on > your home micro and then not remember the first thing about how to use it. The Manx/Aztec C compiler for the Apple II contains a Ved editor which is essentially a stripped down version of Vi. Unfortunately, the text files it produces have the high order bit of each byte set to 0 (like the rest of the world) instead of 1, like most Apple II text files. I wrote a conversion program. (trivial C program) but it is still a pain to convert. Also, what do you plan to do with your text file once you write it? Most Apple II text processors come with their own built-in editors. Text file manipulation of Apple II's is generally chaotic as many firms use their own private binary formats. Gus Fernandez
rosalia@tekig4.UUCP (Mark Galassi) (06/04/85)
In article <1745@sunybcs.UUCP> wahl@sunybcs.UUCP (Norman Wahl) writes: > Does anyone know: > -Is it legal to create a micro editor which has the same command >formats (or, realistically, a good subset thereof) as vi? > -Has it been done, commercially or privately, and for which micro(s)? >I'm interested in getting one, or writing one, for the Apple ][+ myself. >Norm Wahl >University of Buffalo There is a very good subset of vi which runs on the Macintosh with the Aztec C compiler, or on IBM PCs (bleah!) with MS-DOS. It is called 'z', marketed bu Manx Software, and you will find it hard to find a command which vi has and it doesn't. It is just missing a couple of the 'ex' underlying commands. It will yank text, redraw screen, read files, it does everything I use. I don't know if it exists for the Apple ][, but as you see, it is available for micros. Good luck, Mark Galassi tektronix!tekig4!rosalia
zemon@fritz.UUCP (06/08/85)
Manx software systems has an MS-DOS editor called Z which is a
close copy of VI. A friend of mine has it and is extremely
happy with it.
Manx (800) 221-0440
--
-- Art Zemon
FileNet Corp.
...! {decvax, ihnp4, ucbvax} !trwrb!felix!zemonandrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (06/11/85)
> You might consider JOVE, a public domain version of the EMACS editor, which > runs on the IBM PC under MS-DOS and 4.2bsd Unix, at least. I have not used > it on 4.2bsd (yet) but it works well on the PC. It's large (ca. 100K) but > far smaller than the PD EMACS from the GNU project, which is the full-blown > version. Keyboard bindings are arbitrary in JOVE, but it lacks extensibility > and LISP support ... in my view, an excellent tradeoff for size. Jove has been touted lately as a public domain editor. This is not so. If you have the source code, take a look at "re.c", in which credit is given to AT&T's "ed" editor for the regular expression pattern match routines. Jove should never have been ported to MSDOS. Any non-Unix machine running Jove is guilty of software piracy. -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]
steveh@hammer.UUCP (Stephen Hemminger) (06/12/85)
The newest versions of jove (the one's without the unix code) are owned by Unison World. I don't know what it costs, but it is available for the PC from them. Their is an agreement from Unison World to "jovehackers" to allow this version for UNIX SYSTEMS only. I suppose someone could have taken out all the ed code (it isn't hard), but I wouldn't distribute it without doing so! Confirmed jove addict.
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (06/13/85)
> > You might consider JOVE, a public domain version of the EMACS editor, which > > runs on the IBM PC under MS-DOS and 4.2bsd Unix, at least. I have not used > > it on 4.2bsd (yet) but it works well on the PC. It's large (ca. 100K) but > > far smaller than the PD EMACS from the GNU project, which is the full-blown > > version. Keyboard bindings are arbitrary in JOVE, but it lacks extensibility > > and LISP support ... in my view, an excellent tradeoff for size. > > Jove has been touted lately as a public domain editor. This is not so. > If you have the source code, take a look at "re.c", in which credit is > given to AT&T's "ed" editor for the regular expression pattern match > routines. > > Jove should never have been ported to MSDOS. Any non-Unix machine > running Jove is guilty of software piracy. > > -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] > (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA] Here is the header message, verbatim, from re.c in the Jove editor source distribution: /* re.c */ /* JOVE/MSDOS. K. Mitchum 1/85 */ /* Modifications for personal use only. */ /* original code J. Payne LSRHS 5/83 */ /* Ken Mitchum */ /* University of Pittsburgh */ /* Decision Systems Laboratory */ /* Jonathan Payne at Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School 5-25-83 jove_re.c Much of this code was taken from /usr/src/cmd/ed.c. It has been modified a lot and features have been added, but the general algorithm is the same. */ Note that the original source is quoted as "ed.c" but extensive modifications have been made. The "general algorithm" is the same, but an algorithm cannot be copyrighted -- only the specific realization of it. It is far from clear to me that this constitutes software piracy in any form. I solicit opinion from the net. Is it piracy or not? -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (06/16/85)
>> Jove has been touted lately as a public domain editor. This is not so. >> If you have the source code, take a look at "re.c", in which credit is >> given to AT&T's "ed" editor for the regular expression pattern match >> routines. > > Note that the original source is quoted as "ed.c" but extensive modifications > have been made. The "general algorithm" is the same, but an algorithm cannot > be copyrighted -- only the specific realization of it. It is far from clear > to me that this constitutes software piracy in any form. Copyright law includes the concept of a "derived work", which is a work produced by taking a protected work and making changes in it. The law says that a derived work is owned by the owner of the original work. It doesn't matter how much you change it. You could eliminate all but one comment line, write an entire new program under that line, and it would still be the property of the owner of the original work. To make a work which is wholly your own, you must start from scratch. In other words, if you take an original source and make extensive modifications to it, the result is still regarded as the property of the owner of the original source. The situation with regard to Unix code is made more complicated because AT&T primarily uses trade secret protection, not copyright protection. However, Unix is protected by copyright because all works are considered to be copyrighted until they are published, even if they contain no copyright notice, and Unix source has never been published. Anyone who has access to Unix sources is supposed to have signed a form promising to protect the trade secret. A form signed by an employee promising to abide by all his/her company's rules is sufficient to bind the employee to the Unix trade secret contract. The terms of the Unix license also preclude taking a piece of Unix source, making extensive modifications, and distributing to non-Unix sites. Since I posted the original follow-up (double ">>"s above), I received the following message which casts further light on the proprietary nature of jove: > The problem is not the re.c code (because it bears no resemblance > whatsoever to the ed code, although algorithms - which are well known - > are similar), but the low-level tempfile management which is stolen > directly from vi (in io.c). That stuff needs to be rewritten before > Jove can be distributed to non-unix source licence sites... supposedly. -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP] (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (06/18/85)
Re: jove regular expression code I believe technically any code derived from licensed UNIX source code by a series of edits is considered to be constrained by the terms of the original AT&T UNIX license. However, there is nothing magic about the "ed" regular expression code, and one could simply lift the same general algorithm from "Software Tools". This is perhaps a good idea..
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/19/85)
> I solicit opinion from the net. Is it piracy or not?
A more important question: are you willing to be a test case, when the
opposition is AT&T?
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henrysan@cositex.UUCP (Steve Sanderson) (06/20/85)
> > > You might consider JOVE, a public domain version of the EMACS editor... > > Jove has been touted lately as a public domain editor. This is not so. > > ... > Here is the header message, verbatim, from re.c in the Jove editor source > distribution: ... > Much of this code was taken from /usr/src/cmd/ed.c. It has been ... ... > I solicit opinion from the net. Is it piracy or not? > Ed Nather I'm afraid that I would (in the strictest sense) call this software piracy. Considering the case of vi, I was told that one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, that vi is not in the public domain is because of the pattern matching (and other) code from the original ed source code. Considering the differences between ed and vi, and the modifications necessary to achieve the differences, I think that ``major modifications'' to source code does not constitute a completely new entity. After all, even the author admits to jove_re.c being descended from ed source code! Steve Sanderson -- Steve Sanderson, COSI Texas 4412 Spicewood Springs, Suite 801 Austin, Texas 78759 UUCP: {ihnp4, seismo, ctvax}!ut-sally!cositex!san, san@cositex.UUCP AT&T: (512) 345-2780
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (06/20/85)
> > I solicit opinion from the net. Is it piracy or not? > > A more important question: are you willing to be a test case, when the > opposition is AT&T? > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Well, as a matter of principle, I ...uh ... Hmmmmmmmmmm. -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather nather%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA
wahl@sunybcs.UUCP (Norman Wahl) (06/20/85)
There is some confusion over word processing software available
from Manx. What I have figured out is that there are two different
Manx editors being discussed:
1. "Z," which is available for IBM and compatibles, and for
Macintosh. This is already a vi-like editor, for those who use vi
already and would like a familiar user interface. Users of Z who
posted to the net have spoken well of it. However, it is NOT available
for the Apple ][ family, according to Manx itself (800-221-0440).
2. "Aztec C," which is a bundle of software which compiles C
programs and which is available for Apple ][, includes an editor
which can be made to be vi-like. However, the editor has not gotten
good reviews from users on the net; respondents say the subset of
commands is too small, and that it sometimes crashes for unknown
reasons.
If I have overlooked or misrepresented anything here, please
post. I'm still looking for a vi-like editor for Apple ][+, but
don't expect to find one anymore.
Norm Wahl
University of Buffalo