stp@bernina.ethz.ch (Stephan Paschedag) (04/21/91)
Hi !
I've just uploaded some GNU software to the OSK ftp server (128.105.1.214).
At the moment they are still in the incoming folder, but they could be moved to
a new GNU folder...
The following files are new. Again I've only posted the binaries because most
answers I got about my g++ posting said that they preferred the binaries,
however if there's some who would like to get the sources, please let me know !
bison_1.11.tar.Z
compress_4.0.Z
diff_1.1.Z
fgrep_1.11.Z
flex_2.3.tar.Z
gawk_2.11.Z
m4_0.5.Z
sed_1.06.Z
best regards
Stephan
==============================================================================
OS/2 & PS/2 : half an operating system for half a computer
Stephan Paschedag stp@ethz.UUCP
MPL AG, Zelgweg 12, CH-5405 Baden-Daettwil ..!mcvax!cernvax!chx400!ethz!stp
______________________________________________________________________________blarson@blars (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr21.112726.11854@bernina.ethz.ch> stp@bernina.UUCP (Stephan Paschedag) writes: >I've just uploaded some GNU software to the OSK ftp server (128.105.1.214). >At the moment they are still in the incoming folder, but they could be moved to >a new GNU folder... >The following files are new. Again I've only posted the binaries because most >answers I got about my g++ posting said that they preferred the binaries, >however if there's some who would like to get the sources, please let me know ! Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who insists on source. (Note that you and/or the smilodon archiver may be violating the Gnu redistribution policy by not having source already available or at lease a firm statement of exactly how to get it.) I've already got a working bison, compress, and non-gnu diff, and I'm not yet desperate for any of the others so there isn't a real rush. (gawk, sed, and gnu diff would be my first choises.) I think these are not Gnu originals, so have different copyright policies: > compress_4.0.Z > flex_2.3.tar.Z -- blarson@usc.edu C news and rn for os9/68k! -- Bob Larson (blars) blarson@usc.edu usc!blarson Hiding differences does not make them go away. Accepting differences makes them unimportant.
stp@bernina.ethz.ch (Stephan Paschedag) (04/27/91)
In article <194@blars> blarson@usc.edu writes: >In article <1991Apr21.112726.11854@bernina.ethz.ch> stp@bernina.UUCP (Stephan Paschedag) writes: >Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who insists on source. (Note that you >and/or the smilodon archiver may be violating the Gnu redistribution >policy by not having source already available or at lease a firm >statement of exactly how to get it.) I've already got a working Hi ! I think the GNU redistribution policy is not violated, if you have the sources available on request (for at least 5 years, i think) ! Stephan
ekuns@kilroy.UUCP (Eddie Kuns) (05/07/91)
>In article <194@blars> blarson@usc.edu writes: >>In article <1991Apr21.112726.11854@bernina.ethz.ch> stp@bernina.UUCP (Stephan Paschedag) writes: >>Yes, I'm one of those weirdos who insists on source. (Note that you >>and/or the smilodon archiver may be violating the Gnu redistribution >>policy by not having source already available or at lease a firm >>statement of exactly how to get it.) I've already got a working > >I think the GNU redistribution policy is not violated, if you have the sources >available on request (for at least 5 years, i think) ! I believe the exact restriction is that you must supply source if and only if you compile using the GNU libraries. If you use the GNU compiler but Microware libaries, then you are under no copyleft requirement to supply source.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/08/91)
In article <34@kilroy.UUCP> ekuns@kilroy.UUCP (Eddie Kuns) writes:
+I believe the exact restriction is that you must supply source if and only
+if you compile using the GNU libraries. If you use the GNU compiler but
+Microware libaries, then you are under no copyleft requirement to supply
+source.
I believe it goes like this, if you pass a binary of a GNU tool on
to someone else you must make 'arrangements' for the original source
to be available to that persone(entity). If you compile a 'new'
program and use GNU libraries, you are required to provide sources
for the GNU library and if you don't pass on your source, get a
lawyer to tell you that. My reading of the general terms and
conditions of GNU software implies that such 'derivative' works come
under general T&C and thus is required to be distributed 'freely' in
source form.
The T&C do not prevent you from charging a fee for 1) distribution
2) support of ether GNU tools or your own derived work. Remember
free here means 'free from restricted access to source'. Currently
one can get tape made by various archive agency for $200-$300. This
is definately of the $20-$40 absolute minimum for blank tapes, so a
fee can cover time/materials/overhead but $10000 would probably get
one in to trouble in so far as the 'freely' available for a
'nominal' cost concept goes.
As a matter of principle, one should probably make 'easily'
available any mods or extensions or derived work.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edustp@bernina.ethz.ch (Stephan Paschedag) (05/09/91)
In article <19131@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >I believe it goes like this, if you pass a binary of a GNU tool on >to someone else you must make 'arrangements' for the original source >to be available to that persone(entity). If you compile a 'new' .... Anyway, if there is someone out there who would like to have the sources, please tell me so and I will upload them. Some weeks ago I've asked who would prefer only to get the executable. The result of this question was, that about 90% of all answers were that the sources were useless, or that people were too lazy to recompile all the stuff, or didn't have a machine big enough to compile them (gcc,g++..). best regards Stephan