roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Thomas Roell) (12/06/90)
I heard from someone that Tom Friedel posted here an article (which was
canceled by himself) in which he stated that the binaries and sources would
contain AT&T source code. Since I had not the chance to read this article,
but assume that some of you read this posting, I want to say here something
about it.
First of all: There is definitely no AT&T source code in this server.
Why did Tom Friedel post this article ?
1) There was originally a bugfix for an AT&T driver (ldterm) which was the
reason that VPIX would not run under xterm, or the 8th bit was stripped.
I wrote this bugfix, and even told Tom F. about it, because he reported me
a problem of his own, which I recognized being related to this driver.
I dropped the idea of including this driver to my distribution because
this would be illegal. You may now ask you UNIX vendor to get this bug.
It's quite simple.
2) Tom Friedel did this posting because he works for a company that also wants
to sell an X11R4 server for VGA. He didn't tell me this fact, when he
reported me his problem. I also assume that he hab a look at my beta-test
code. So I assume, he wants to do everything to drop my PD-Server.
3) When the next version of my server will be available a complete XView 2.0
toolkit will be available. This toolkits is also planned for the product
Tom Friedel worte, but I assume not ready to be delivered. Myne will be
available around christmas.
Tom, is your behavior fair ??? I wrote a letter to you for personal use, and now
you are trying to fool me ?
- Thomas
--
_______________________________________________________________________________
Mail: Thomas Roell (c/o Daniel Hernandez)
Inst. f. Informatik / Technische Universitaet M"unchen
Arcisstr. 21 / 8000 Munich 2 / Fed.Rep. of Germany
E-Mail (domain): roell@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de
UUCP (when above fails): roell@tumult.{uucp | informatik.tu-muenchen.de}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------tpf@jdyx.UUCP (Tom Friedel) (12/07/90)
I cancelled my article as all this seems to be getting real ugly. Please note that in my mind there was no implied confidence between Thomas and I. I posted to Usenet, and he replied with the message I am being criticized (by some) for posting. That is all we exchnged. tom
roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Thomas Roell) (12/07/90)
(this letter might boar you, but I think this letter should be open, so everybody can read it, and thing about it) >> >> I heard from someone that Tom Friedel posted here an article (which was >> canceled by himself) in which he stated that the binaries and sources would > >no, someone else cancelled. One of you fans, I presume. > Maybe, but I don't find this a good behavior, too. That could be not fan of myne, who takes away the chance from me to add some comments to this article. Whoever this article canceled: NEVER DO THIS AGAIN ! >No, here is why posted, and I debated about it for several weeks, and I >consulted with a few poeple here on the net. If I did the wrong thing I am >truly sorry. I appreciate your bringing the issue into the open. Why didn't you talk with me ????? >I have been working in Unix 8386 graphics for a few years, and yes, I am >also working on an X11R4 server. I have to pay hundreds of dollars a year >for 'support' contracts, which means a few days later I get an answer to >my question that more often than not is not very helpful. > >I also discovered that the STREAMS ldterm module was broken, but I could >only guess. It might have been the 'ptem' module. It would have been so >nice and saved me so much time if I could have pulled up the AT&T source >and checked it out. > >I also had to learn how to do video memory mapping, vt switching, and a few >other things with header files, poor documentation and much trial and error, >at great time expense. > >So the reason I posted I think was to cry about how unfair it all seemed. >I sure didn't do it to make myself popular. Hmm, ok I think it's time to tell the REAL whole story. Perhaps you missed some of my e-mails, perhaps my english was not clear enougth, or perhaps I should have told you the whole story. My server war running long before I had any contact to AT&T sources (excpet the standard includes ..) -- about in early june it was quite finished. So I had all the trouble you had. Even more: I had no 'support' contracts. I had not the resources you had. Do you know how hard it is to get data books for video chips ??? Did you pay around $1000 to make a PD-X11R4-server happen just for idealism ??? Ok, ok I worte this server for myself, too, but the high costs remain. I had also to learn by trial and error. Debugging a graphics application via a seriall terminal, cause your console gets scrambled is no fun ! And the documentation I got form ISC is rediculous. Just call it good instinct. And having only a 110MBytes HD for all sources. I don't want to cry here, cause writing this part of software was quite funny, and I learned much. BTW, even you did send me earlier some patches to help me... (You may ask, why I didn't give away my server in june ? The reason is simple: I had to write some important exams (aug/sep/oct). So there was not the time to fully test the server. And there were some bugs! There were also some extensions, which I wanted to do.) Around early june I experimented with a german keyboard, which has some charecters on it that are included in the ISO-Latin-2 charecter set. The codes of these chars are above 127. So I got to the problem that ldterm stripped the eigth bit. I even dissabemled the ldterm and pterm driver, to dectect the bug. I got it in ldterm. I also got a workaround: The eigth bit is only stripped, if OPOST is enabled. This was REAL reverse engeneering !!!! Some weeks later there was a discussion in comp.unix.sysv386, why VPIX didn't run under my first server. I instantly knew by looking at some include-files that ldterm was the reason. One of the persons (who's name I NEVER will tell), who urgently wanted to run VPIX with xterm told me that he had the sources for the STREAMS package of AT&T (here I wrote something differntly to you, but I wanted you NOT to know that somebody has sent me these soucres, cause I promised him nobody to tell his name). There was a long discussion with my friends and some people from the net whether I should simply include the ldterm driver in my X11R4 distribution. Most thought that this would be illegal, but the only way. If I sent the diffs to a UNIX vendor, there might be patches, but can you really wait for them ?. A ldterm driver without a STREAMS package would make no sence. So all I was about to do was to give away simply a bugfix. >>2) Tom Friedel did this posting because he works for a company that also want >> to sell an X11R4 server for VGA. He didn't tell me this fact, when he >> reported me his problem. I also assume that he hab a look at my beta-test > >I did NOT report to you this problem. I have never reported any problems to >you. I posted to the comp.windows.x group, and you replied. This was my BIG mistake! Because you helped me earlier with a bugfix, I thought it would be fair to give away some of my knowledge to you. (In February I a guy sent me some patches - I should treat them as confidental - and I remeber that his name was Tom Fridel. Maybe I remeber something wrong ?) I assumed, 'this is a good man, he helped me, why not help him before he spends the same time as you working on the same problem ?' When you sent me your letter, where you said that you think it's unfair to include the ldterm driver to the distribution I dropped the ldterm driver immediately. >> code. So I assume, he wants to do everything to drop my PD-Server. > >No, I won't say another word. I just wanted people to know. I'm very sorry that I said these hard words. But I was reported that you canceled this article by yourself. This made me very angry, cause I indeed wanted to answer and clarify this situation. But this behavior (which I assumed) looked like you didn't want me to answer. As I read the announcement of your work I was sure that your work collides with myne. So it was clear for me that you would do anything to drop my server (this was also influenced be the rought tone in your letter). Please forgive me that I get you wrong. >No, ours is shipping now on ega,vga,svga,TARGA,8514 with Motif 1.1 on ESIX, >ISC and SCO Unix. With a 341 server around the corner. >( Contact me and I'll get you in touch with the right people ) Ok, this is my very LAST PD PROJECT. There will be just one new release including the XView 2.0 toolkit. Thenafter I'll write software only for cash. So come on, I'm free !! If you pay me enought, I'll write software for you. It's not worth the trouble writing free software ! I also wanted to do a 8514 and TIGA (34010) X-server for free, but you got me to a point to get my fingers off from PD-software. But there is a last question I have for you: As I read in the annoucement of your product, you used GCC and GDB for developing this. You used FREE SOFTWARE !!!!!! Didn't you read the GNU copyleft ? Why couldn't you just accept that I'm a idealist ? - Thomas PS: The company Tom F. works for is named MetroX. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Mail: Thomas Roell (c/o Daniel Hernandez) Inst. f. Informatik / Technische Universitaet M"unchen Arcisstr. 21 / 8000 Munich 2 / Fed.Rep. of Germany E-Mail (domain): roell@lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de UUCP (when above fails): roell@tumult.{uucp | informatik.tu-muenchen.de} -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tpf@jdyx.UUCP (Tom Friedel) (12/08/90)
roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Thomas Roell) writes: >(this letter might boar you, but I think this letter should be open, so >everybody can read it, and thing about it) >>No, here is why posted, and I debated about it for several weeks, and I >>consulted with a few poeple here on the net. If I did the wrong thing I am >>truly sorry. I appreciate your bringing the issue into the open. >Why didn't you talk with me ????? Well, I did. You referred to my letter yourself. As this I think is very important the sequence of events was: I posted question to comp.sources.x, you told me about source, I mentioned I was an X programmer and how unfair I thought this was in a letter to you. I never heard anything and much later I decided to post this note for the reason(s) in the the letter you are quoting. I had assumed that you would have tried to clarify such a grave issue then, but I perhaps should have mailed to you again. I then cancelled this posting 12 hours later, not because I felt I had done the wrong thing, but because I found I really wasn't prepared for the controversy this might cause, and wasn't sure that you were either. Most people would have seen only your posting stating the legality of the server, and not my posting, and not thought much more about it. > > ... long explanation about the ldterm module. I will accept this because you say it is so. Perhaps it is your English, but your earlier letter indicated differently. > ... lost of stuff about the programming ascpect of his project. What Tom has done with VGA cards is indeed quite amazing. >This was my BIG mistake! Because you helped me earlier with a bugfix, I thought >it would be fair to give away some of my knowledge to you. (In February I >a guy sent me some patches - I should treat them as confidental - and I remeber >that his name was Tom Fridel. Maybe I remeber something wrong ?) I don't recall this. Unless I did not recognize it was you way back in Feb. >I'm very sorry that I said these hard words. But I was reported that you >me that you would do anything to drop my server (this was also influenced be >the rought tone in your letter). Please forgive me that I get you wrong. Those few who read my post might judge for themselves. I just want to reiterate that I did not make this post lightly or without several weeks of thought and consultation, and that it was the only posting I was planning to make on the subject. Thomas is obviously quite a gentleman in giving me so much the benefit of the doubt. >But there is a last question I have for you: As I read in the annoucement of >your product, you used GCC and GDB for developing this. > You used FREE SOFTWARE !!!!!! But I am not sure I see the point here. My objection was not that the software was free. tom
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (12/08/90)
roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Thomas Roell) writes: >Ok, this is my very LAST PD PROJECT. There will be just one new release >including the XView 2.0 toolkit. Thenafter I'll write software only for cash. >So come on, I'm free !! If you pay me enought, I'll write software for you. >It's not worth the trouble writing free software ! >I also wanted to do a 8514 and TIGA (34010) X-server for free, but you got me >to a point to get my fingers off from PD-software. Tom, I've expressed my opinion of what Tom did directly to Tom and I'll not repeat it here. What I want to say is this. Even though I have no use for X or X products at the moment, I really appreciate your work. And the work of all PD software writers for that matter. I'm sure I echo the feeling of most people on this group. Please don't let this issue taint you regarding public domain software. I think you'll find that the rewards of writing public domain software will greatly outstrip the few bucks you might make by keeping it secret. Just redirect the letters from the dicks to the bit bucket and carry on. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"
rrsum@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Rick Summerhill) (12/09/90)
I for one would like to thank Tom Roell for his X server! I use it all the time and it has made my life much easier. Thought you would like to know this, Tom. --Rick Summerhill -- Rick Summerhill Phone: (913)532-6311 CTA, Cardwell Hall FAX: (913)532-5914 Kansas State University Net: rrsum@hermzel.ksu.ksu.edu Manhattan, KS 66506
james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) (12/09/90)
In <5953@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Thomas Roell) wrote: > Most thought that this would be illegal, but the only way. [...] A > ldterm driver without a STREAMS package would make no sence. So all I > was about to do was to give away simply a bugfix. In the eyes of the law, even Robin Hood is a thief because he stole, whatever his intentions to do good. > Ok, this is my very LAST PD PROJECT. There will be just one new > release including the XView 2.0 toolkit. Thenafter I'll write software > only for cash. I'm not sure I understand the logic to this. Writing for profit vs. free has little to do with being caught with stolen source. What is it that makes no longer wish to work on free software? The consequences of using AT&T source in a commercial product are considerably greater than PD software I imagine. > But there is a last question I have for you: As I read in the annoucement of > your product, you used GCC and GDB for developing this. > > You used FREE SOFTWARE !!!!!! > > Didn't you read the GNU copyleft ? Why couldn't you just accept that I'm a > idealist ? The difference is that Friedel is allowed to use gcc and gdb by FSF, whereas AT&T never authorized you to use their source. This is not a terribly subtle distinction. I confess that I was disappointed to learn that your server was tainted by illegal source access. It seems almost gratuitous: virtually none of your work in the X server could use material derived from AT&T source. Why throw the entire issue into doubt over ldterm? The server would have been a very good piece of work even without the AT&T sources & ldterm change. -- James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Dell Computer Co 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759 512-338-8789
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (12/10/90)
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Thomas Roell) writes: >>Ok, this is my very LAST PD PROJECT. >What I want to say is this. Even though I have no use >for X or X products at the moment, I really appreciate your work. And >the work of all PD software writers for that matter. I'm sure I echo >the feeling of most people on this group. mine, at least! perhaps we can convince the FSF to hire him! (they do hire programmers & writers, that's one reason why they need donations). -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/11/90)
On 9 Dec 90 11:40:30 GMT, james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) said: In article <50931@bigtex.cactus.org> james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van In article <50931@bigtex.cactus.org> Artsdalen) writes: james> In <5953@tuminfo1.lan.informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de>, james> roell@informatik.tu-muenchen.dbp.de (Thomas Roell) wrote: james> The consequences of using AT&T source in a commercial product are james> considerably greater than PD software I imagine. From what I understand Thomas Roell did not after all include AT&T source in a PD product. He included a bug fix for AT&T source, a bug fix that can only be used by people who have AT&T source. It is my guess that Thomas Roell can legally access AT&T source to derive the bug fix, as with all probability his University is an AT&T source licensee. A number of free sw packages distributed by Universities and other entities that are AT&T source licensees come with patches to AT&T licensed source (Ingres 7 for example used to require a patch to the exit(2) implementation for the lock driver), and since the amount of AT&T licensed source is small, they have no reason to claim that their copyright or trade secret has been violated. I am a bit perplexed by the idea that he could have posted the ldterm source in its entirety, as an act of protest an defiance, but thank goodness he did not, and thought better. But this aborted intention is about the only thing that IMNHO he can be accused of. Morever the ldterm(4) patch mentioned has been *posted* on this net some months ago by somebody else, if memory serves me well. james> The difference is that Friedel is allowed to use gcc and gdb by james> FSF, whereas AT&T never authorized you to use their source. This james> is not a terribly subtle distinction. [ ... ] I confess that I james> was disappointed to learn that your server was tainted by illegal james> source access. First it must be shown that Thomas Roell is not covered by an AT&T license or that posting a small excerpt is a violation of that license or of the copyright. IMNHO it is perfectly correct in law and established practice to make public bug fixes to AT&T licensed source code, whether they are headers or actual program code. -- Piercarlo Grandi | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (12/13/90)
james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) writes: >I confess that I was disappointed to learn that your server was >tainted by illegal source access. It seems almost gratuitous: >virtually none of your work in the X server could use material derived >from AT&T source. Why throw the entire issue into doubt over ldterm? >The server would have been a very good piece of work even without the >AT&T sources & ldterm change. what i understood is, that the server itself is *not* derived from (includes part of) the ldterm source. it's just that the server has problems with the OS(es) that have a bug in ldterm. if you can get your vendor to fix the bug (or your OS doesn't have that bug), you can use the *pure* server code without problems. however, there might be a little conflict of interests for the vendor, if he'd rather like to sell you his server. -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
tmh@bigfoot.FOKUS.GMD.DBP.DE (Thomas Hoberg) (12/15/90)
Thomas Roell writes: |> |> Ok, this is my very LAST PD PROJECT. There will be just one new release |> including the XView 2.0 toolkit. Thenafter I'll write software only for cash. Oh my God! Look what you have done! I don't want someone like Thomas going off the PD track! Ok, idealism doen't get beans on the table, but it certainly makes live easier for those who have no beans to spend. Perhaps someone with a little money left over should send a tax deductible donation to Thomas. After all I heard some nice hardware would do, too. Perhaps Headland should send him an 8514 and TI a 34020 board. After all a PD X-Server for those should spur their hardware sales. There is a wounderful new RAMDAC available for VGA's from AMD that does antialiasing in hardware (more colors, too?). Only a public domain X-Server makes adding support for that chip feasable for people like me, who cannot invest months of time battleing VT-switching and other gritty details of ISC's Unix. I am doing a port of the X11R4 server to a multi media workstation based on a couple of dedicated processors (among them a C-Cube and a TI 34020). I have relied heavily on tools like GCC for cross compiling. Without PD tools like them, it simply could not have been done. The 'commercial'' compilers and linkers weren't worth the floppies they came on. Lets not treat those GNU idealists like this, they are doing a service for (almost?) all of us and they deserve our support rather than legal battles. Let's fight software patents, they are 'Berufsverbote' (meaning you are not allowed to do your job) for programmers. :-((( tom ---- Thomas M. Hoberg | UUCP: tmh@prosun.first.gmd.de or tmh%gmdtub@tub.UUCP c/o GMD Berlin | ...!unido!tub!gmdtub!tmh (Europe) or D-1000 Berlin 12 | ...!unido!tub!tmh Hardenbergplatz 2 | ...!pyramid!tub!tmh (World) Germany | BITNET: tmh%DB0TUI6.BITNET@DB0TUI11 or +49-30-254 99 160 | tmh@tub.BITNET