pp0s+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Peter Colin Piela) (05/31/91)
Two questions: Has anyone fixed the X11 driver for ralpage so it works with color displays? Can some point me to an archive site where I can fetch a ready-to-go version of ghostscript for Apollo workstations? Thanks, Peter
rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) (06/01/91)
In article <1991May31.155935.6043@cs.cmu.edu>, pp0s+@EDRC.CMU.EDU (Peter Colin Piela) writes:
Can some point me to an archive site where I can fetch a ready-to-go
version of ghostscript for Apollo workstations?
Funny you should ask. I just finished compiling ghostscript on my Apollo,
after getting disgusted with xps. I made no changes to the source, only
configuration changes to the makefile. I suggest using:
-DNOPRIVATE because there is a bug in the Apollo compiler/linker that makes
it want to allocate space for static globals in the data section.
-A cpu,3000 for the usual reasons (I wish they'd make this the default, or
at least let me change the default on a per-node basis).
-A nansi for the usual reasons (don't claim to be ansi if you're not!)
-BDSD4_2 which really means 4.2 or 4.3, as I discovered the hard way.
That's it. Works pretty well, even on the Interleaf output that made xps
barf. But I can't get it to work on MS Word output -- anyone know how?
I would love to make a binary available to you, but the gnu license
prohibits me from doing so. You can get ghostscript from the usual ftp
sites. Mine is version 2.1.1 and I got it from wuarchive.wustl.edu .
I'll be glad to send makefile diffs if you want.kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) (06/02/91)
In article <51e5d5ff.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >I would love to make a binary available to you, but the gnu license >prohibits me from doing so. You can get ghostscript from the usual ftp >sites. Mine is version 2.1.1 and I got it from wuarchive.wustl.edu . >I'll be glad to send makefile diffs if you want. You misunderstand the gnu license (GPL). You can distribute binaries if you wish. Many ports of GNU software are distributed this way, especially MS-DOS ports. However, the license does say that you must make the source changes you made to generate the distributed binary available to anyone who receives the binary and would also like your changes to the source. So, why don't you make the binary AND the makefile diffs available? Nothing in the GPL is there to prevent people from sharing changes they have made to GNU Software. However, the GPL does state that if you modify GNU software and distribute binary executables containing those modifications, you MUST make those source modifications available to anyone who wishes to obtain them. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Gallagher kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh DSC Communications Corporation Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) (06/03/91)
In article <1991Jun2.025712.1595@digi.lonestar.org>, kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: In article <51e5d5ff.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >I would love to make a binary available to you, but the gnu license >prohibits me from doing so. You misunderstand the gnu license (GPL). You can distribute binaries if you wish. Many ports of GNU software are distributed this way, especially MS-DOS ports. However, the license does say that you must make the source changes you made to generate the distributed binary available to anyone who receives the binary and would also like your changes to the source. The GPL seems pretty clear to me. I don't think I misunderstood it. One of the terms of the gnu general license (as described in a file that comes with ghostscript) is as follows: 3. You may copy and distribute Ghostscript (or a portion or derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or, b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal shipping charge) a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or, c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form alone.) So a binary distribution is only possible under b) or c) above. Since I received ghostscript as source, I'm restricted to b). Even if you assume "written" can mean "machine-readable" (and I don't read it that way), I'm still required to make guarantees valid for three years, which I certainly can't do. The way I read this, gnu software can only be distributed in source form. I believe that's the way Stallman intended it. If you have a different interpretation, I would like to hear it.
rehrauer@apollo.hp.com (Steve Rehrauer) (06/03/91)
In article <51e5d5ff.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes: >Funny you should ask. I just finished compiling ghostscript on my Apollo, >after getting disgusted with xps. I made no changes to the source, only >configuration changes to the makefile. I suggest using: > [ ... ] >-A cpu,3000 for the usual reasons (I wish they'd make this the default, or >at least let me change the default on a per-node basis). We did make it the default for the *.8 compilers. (Okay, I lied. We made "mathlib_sr10" the default. It's almost the same as "3000"; you get inline floating-point code for anything that an '040 supports directly. E.g.: you get lib-calls for some of the transcendentals. Still, it's (default performance) far, far better than "-A cpu,any". Note that if you're using a FPA board, or have a PEB node or some such early hardware, then you should override the default -cpu. Refer to the release notes (you know: those papers no one reads :-) on the *.8 compilers for full details.)