shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (03/16/91)
Perhaps this little mantra should go in the FAQ. Yes, KSH is a nice shell. Yes, more vendors have chosen to offer it. No, you can't have the source code - not legally, anyway - unless you license it. Same goes for binaries. ----------- uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech
s1039@heron.qz.se (Lars Magnusson) (03/19/91)
In article <268@raysnec.UUCP> you write: > > Perhaps this little mantra should go in the FAQ. Yes, KSH is a >nice shell. Yes, more vendors have chosen to offer it. No, you can't have the >source code - not legally, anyway - unless you license it. Same goes for >binaries. > >----------- >uunet!media!ka3ovk!raysnec!shwake shwake@rsxtech Worked in Denmark some years ago, where I succeded to get our salesrep. from an ex-AT&T-partner (OLI, who else) to deliver ksh binary to our 3B2's, and as I understood, didn't AT&T care, if they gave away it as long it weren't in source. And if so, with a price of 3000 from the AT&T Toolchest (what ever that is), the vendors definily could give us the true ksh in the bargin. Start pesting the vendors with demands that ksh is include instead of bsh, as it should. SCO and SUN are some of those that could do better (or could have done earlier). In Europe the situation normaly is worse, since we gets the updates approx. 1 year after US in many cases. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lars Magnusson ! EUNET : lmag@z.amu.se Dept. of Computing ! KOM : s1039 (s1039@heron.QZ.SE) AMU Jamtland ! Tel : + 46 63 14 56 00 Box 603 ! Fax : + 46 63 12 33 42 832 01 Froson (Ostersund) ! Sweden ! (Ostersund - candidate for Winter Olympics 1998) ==========================================================================
wul@sco.COM (Wu Liu) (03/25/91)
/--s1039@heron.qz.se (Lars Magnusson) said... | In article <268@raysnec.UUCP> you write: | > Perhaps this little mantra should go in the FAQ. Yes, KSH is a | >nice shell. Yes, more vendors have chosen to offer it. No, you can't have the | >source code - not legally, anyway - unless you license it. Same goes for | >binaries. | | Worked in Denmark some years ago, where I succeded to get our salesrep. | from an ex-AT&T-partner (OLI, who else) to deliver ksh binary to our | 3B2's, and as I understood, didn't AT&T care, if they gave away it | as long it weren't in source. And if so, with a price of 3000 from the | AT&T Toolchest (what ever that is), the vendors definily could give us | the true ksh in the bargin. Start pesting the vendors with demands that | ksh is include instead of bsh, as it should. SCO and SUN are some of | those that could do better (or could have done earlier). In Europe | the situation normaly is worse, since we gets the updates approx. | 1 year after US in many cases. \-- From what I understand of AT&T Toolchest policy, you can obtain the source code and a site license for KSH for some amount of money (I guess $3000). Note that this is only a site license; you're not supposed to sell or hand out copies of the binaries you produce. The cost for a binary distribution license is more (I seem to recall $10,000, although it's probably higher). It's certainly not free. I use ksh, and I like it a lot. I do wish SCO had provided KSH prior to Unix 3.2v2 and the upcoming Xenix 2.3.4, but I guess it's better late than never...