Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 05:54:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: grog@lemis.com (Greg Lehey) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, mike@smith.net.au, brett@lariat.org, pechter@shell.monmouth.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GNU software (was: "Open Source Town Meeting" supports only one faction) Message-ID: <199807220554.WAA07497@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <19980722151117.P8993@freebie.lemis.com> from "Greg Lehey" at Jul 22, 98 03:11:17 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > CVS was originally a non-GPL'ed comp.sources.unix posting. > > Right, but like many others here, it's now under GPL. You can bitch > about that all you want (and I suppose you will), but it doesn't > change the fact that it's GPL and without an adequate replacement. Actually... FreeBSD has been offered, a number of times, a commercial source code control system developed on FreeBSD. I believe it addresses most of the issues that normally bite me on the arse, such a seperate history maintenance for non-committers, unlike CVS... As far as complaining, I'd much rather complain about the Sleepycat license, which is for all intents and purposes GPL'ing the BSD dbm code, and unlike the GPL does not poison-pill itself against the UCB license. All of FreeBSD could be distributed under such a license, and we would, of course, be screwed to the GPL cross if any were so stupid as to donate code back to the wrong place first. > > gdb -- well, I have to admit to using backtrace once in a while; > > however, there are much better (X-only, admittely) source > > debuggers available. > > Really? And they don't have backtrace? Anyway, point me to them. No, they have backtrace; I'm just a CLI-person, and too lazy to rewrite my alias. But of course, this isn't a point to you in any case... GPL'ed software is "free" software (why don't they just call it "liberated software" and quit confusing everyone?). As such, I can utilize it all I want and not pay them a dime. Just as they can utilize the code I've put out there under UCB license the same way. > > gzip? -- use compress. > > And lose a whole lot of compression. If you are really worried about this, rewrite the code. The algorithms are not shrouded in mystery. If they were, they wouldn't be able to use them. PS: I believe Berkeley compress uses Terry Welch's code, and thus gets better compression than you give it credit for; the gzip code uses lonly Lempil-Ziv (when compressing) and public algorithms, such as adaptive Huffman, when not). > I can also use ex instead of Emacs, but it's a little more difficult to use. So use "vi", and avoid carpel-tunnel syndrome at the same time... > > Bison? Use yacc instead; mostly needed for the non-standard grammars > > used by GNU make, GCC, GNU configure, etc.. > > Is there a free yacc? I thought the only one we had was bison under a > different name. Berkeley yacc. I have personally done maintenance on it, including making it spit out C++ and JAVA code. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807220554.WAA07497>