bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (04/07/88)
In article <8803291504.AA08952@unipress.uucp> mg@unipress.UUCP (required by law) writes: > [...a bunch of other glowing stuff nobody can really argue with :-) > [...also some impressivly balanced comments about how his own > [...product compares to GNU Emacs...] >We (UniPress) sell a commercial version of Emacs originally written >by James Gosling, who also wrote NeWS. GnuEmacs is a free (but not >public domain) version also descended from Gosling's Emacs. All Gosling code has been excised in recent versions. >...GnuEmacs doesn't directly cost much money if you know where to get >it (I think $150 from the Free Software Foundation). Repeat the mantra: "That $150 is a tape copying fee." If you don't want to pay FSF to spin tapes for you, you can get it via anonymous FTP from prep.ai.mit.edu, or via anonymous UUCP from osu-cis. >Also, unlike FSF, we LIKE NeWS. This is a FSF attitude that I entirely disagree with. Chris Miao added support for NeWS 1.0 in Emacs 18.49, and Clayton Elwell fixed some stuff up for NeWS 1.1 in Emacs 18.50. I understand that Chris's changes were offered back to FSF as a contribution to their efforts, but were turned down because of NeWS' proprietary status. RMS, why not accept the changes on the same basis that VMS and SunView are included in the distribution: work that willing contributors offered, in order to give the product a wider audience, in those mean, nasty, proprietary non-standard environments? Yes, I know that RMS doesn't read this newsgroup, but if we get everybody singing the first four bars... he'll think it's a movement! >Mike Gallaher, Emacs Hacker Boss, UniPress Software -=- Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 bob@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!bob
ANKGC@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Anil Khullar) (04/08/88)
In article <9890@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) says: > >In article <8803291504.AA08952@unipress.uucp> mg@unipress.UUCP (required by law) writes: >> [...a bunch of other glowing stuff nobody can really argue with :-) >> [...also some impressivly balanced comments about how his own >> [...product compares to GNU Emacs...] > >>We (UniPress) sell a commercial version of Emacs originally written >>by James Gosling, who also wrote NeWS. GnuEmacs is a free (but not >>public domain) version also descended from Gosling's Emacs. > >All Gosling code has been excised in recent versions. > >>...GnuEmacs doesn't directly cost much money if you know where to get >>it (I think $150 from the Free Software Foundation). > >Repeat the mantra: "That $150 is a tape copying fee." If you don't >want to pay FSF to spin tapes for you, you can get it via anonymous >FTP from prep.ai.mit.edu, or via anonymous UUCP from osu-cis. >>Also, unlike FSF, we LIKE NeWS. >This is a FSF attitude that I entirely disagree with. Chris Miao >added support for NeWS 1.0 in Emacs 18.49, and Clayton Elwell fixed >some stuff up for NeWS 1.1 in Emacs 18.50. I understand that Chris's >changes were offered back to FSF as a contribution to their efforts, >but were turned down because of NeWS' proprietary status. > >RMS, why not accept the changes on the same basis that VMS and SunView >are included in the distribution: work that willing contributors >offered, in order to give the product a wider audience, in those mean, >nasty, proprietary non-standard environments? I think a crucial point is missed here. It is that of not allowing software that usually is guarded and prevent others from copying or altering (oops ! pls del the last word I am reading from a VM machine) hence the objection. I do not agree that groups who *sell* their code with restrictions should not have a chance to PLUG their packages. As for Unipress Emacs (no flames please) I nearly cried using it on a VMS environment. They had hooked some of their definitions that a user without priveleges could not redefine in their own environment. I now use GNU on a VMS machine and There is enough info available from Mukesh Prasad's port and updates from Marty Sasaki to let nearly anyone to rehack it for his/her needs........ >Yes, I know that RMS doesn't read this newsgroup, but if we get >everybody singing the first four bars... he'll think it's a movement! > >>Mike Gallaher, Emacs Hacker Boss, UniPress Software >-=- > Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science > The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 > bob@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!bob Anil Khullar ank%cunyvms1.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu ankgc@cunyvm.cuny.edu
lord+@andrew.cmu.edu (Tom Lord) (04/13/88)
Bob Sutterfield said something to the affect that Goslings code had been completely excised from gnu-emacs. Is this actually true? The last version I looked at had some pretty hairy regexp code that I thought was Goslings? -Tom p.s.: regardless of whose code it is, it's pretty aweful in that 1) I wouldn't ask my dog to maintain it. 2) It doesn't impliment `true' regexps. In particular, the | operator is not commutative. (There may be other problems, too. Who can say?). Has anyone out there had experience writing real regexp packages? Sadly, both of those two problems seem to be present in every regexp package I've seen. (I can certainly see why, now that I'm trying to write my own.) If anyone out there can offer (by private email) helpful advice, I'd appreciate it.
karl@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (04/13/88)
lord+@andrew.cmu.edu writes:
Bob Sutterfield said something to the affect that Goslings code had been
completely excised from gnu-emacs.
Is this actually true? The last version I looked at had some pretty
hairy regexp code that I thought was Goslings?
Bob and I both thought that Gosling's stuff was gone. He dropped a
note to RMS, who confirmed that the last Gosling code was excised a
couple of years ago.
--Karlbob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (04/13/88)
In article <YWMdxLy00jaIFUjUxm@andrew.cmu.edu> lord+@andrew.cmu.edu (Tom Lord) writes: > >Bob Sutterfield said something to the affect that Goslings code had >been completely excised from gnu-emacs. Since I don't have any GNUmacs v15 or v16 code lying about any more to examine next to contemporary Gosmacs code and current GNUmacs code, I really can't say. However, I did check with those who should know and got responses from reputable FSF folks that all the Gosling code has long since been removed. (Their notes were private mail, so I won't post them.) (I can't recall another recent posting for which I've been so careful to get my facts straight first :-) Others have pointed out that the code still looks pretty similar. I figure that if Unipress thinks it's different enough that they aren't uptight about GNUmacs using it; then it's different enough for me. -- Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 bob@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!att!osu-cis!bob
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (04/14/88)
[various speculations about GNU Emacs possibly containing Gosling Emacs regular expression code] I find it interesting to note that the Gosling Emacs regex code was originally written by Tom London. Search.c contains or contained the following comment: /* * Modified Aug. 12, 1981 by Tom London to include regular expressions * as in ed. RE stuff hacked over extensivly by jag to correct a few major * problems, mainly dealing with searching within the buffer rather than * copying each line to a separate array. Newlines can now appear in RE's. */ Were I the suspicious type, I might wonder whether Tom London's regex code were based upon that in ed. In any case I suspect Tom was at Bell Labs at the time (the 32V compiler, even the one that survives in 4.3BSD, is full of code by `tbl'---Thomas B. London?---and the Vax compiler was no doubt done around 1978--1980) and hence the code might conceivably lie under AT&T's control. None of this is grounded in anything at all, of course, but it seems to me the most straightforward approach is for everyone to to give everything away. Then no one need decide what is `based upon' what, and just how much changing or rewriting or `extensive hacking over' is necessary before the code magically changes ownership. But I can see that the windows in this tower have fogged over with ivory again. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Yes, *THAT* Matt Crawford) (04/14/88)
Chris Torek writes:
) [various speculations about Unipress Emacs possibly containing AT&T
) regular expression code]
Also, when the question of any Gosling code in GNU emacs first
appeared, the point was raised and not answered that the original
development of Gosling emacs was probably done under an academic unix
license. I don't recall anyone explaining whether this fact, if
true, has any consequences or not.
Matt