Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 01:08:16 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> Cc: Michael Carr <sphaleotas@blueyonder.co.uk> Subject: Re: RMS says: "Use BSD, for goodness sake!" Message-ID: <3EFBFB70.B6121D9E@mindspring.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030625214311.00e5e240@localhost> <20030626110336.GW34365@iconoplex.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Robinson wrote: > If we take the output of that, and also mix in the stuff in /usr/src/gnu > then we get the list (and my rough, top of the head, first stab on whether > they're needed and/or can be reimplemented) below of around 35 (there is > some duplication) packages that would need to be re-implemented, replaced or > removed for FBSD to be GPL free. > > as - could be replaced, maybe even re-implmented. There's a different assembler, already in ports. > awk - encourage people to port their code away from awk. Big. Real awk is available. > bc - an undergrad could re-implement based on man page Or even a graduate... 8-). > binutils - collection of some 20 smallish apps, all manageable These are all tied to the compilers. Most of them are only necessary because of the compiler. > bzip2 - could be reimplemented Or ignored. The Unisys patent which caused it to be written has expired (Welcome home, compress, we missed you!). > cc - find an alternative compiler? From where? TenDRA. Watcom. Intel. Lots of choices here. > cpio - reimplement from man page, or replace/remove requirement for pax. > cvs - Don't need this do we? :-) look at another version control? P4. > dc - see bc "" > dialog - need it now, kill it later, or re-implement based on man page Kill it. > diff - another undergrad project > diff3 - see diff Free versions available. > gcc - hahahaha. yeah, right. see "cc". > gdb - ditto. See "cc" and "binutils". > gperf - remove? teach people better DS&A? :-) Not needed. > grep - the issue here is the regexp, otherwise re-implement. Recently discussed; replacement not imported for historical performance reasons. > groff - look at alternate doc formatting? Real nroff available. Primary reason for groff is mandoc and Postscript. > gzip - nasty, but re-implementable. Or we move to a non-GNU zip format. Compress, again. > ipfilter - unclear on license... QNX_OCL.txt??? OpenBSD implementation; however, current ipfilter is not GPL. > less - re-implementable quite quickly Just use standard "more". > ld - similar issues to cc and as - quite small though. See CC. > libgmp - alternatives available, with a performance hit Shouldn't need to install this by default as part of base system. > libio - another stdio lib from somewhere to replace it? Uh... /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio? > libpam - Linux PAM. Major effort to replace. PAM has already been moved out from under by D.E.S. > libreadline - big one to replace, IMHO Free replacement exists; big problem is internationalization, which is poorly handled anyway. > man - could be re-implemented based on file format information known Part of real nroff/troff. > ncurses - big, high-impact, hard to replace Old curses (Welcome back, real terminfo support!) > patch - see diff Larry Wall's "Artistic License"; not GPL. > perl - it's not part of base anymore is it? If people want it, they grab it Not part of base system. > ptx - remove/replace/re-implement. Probably the former. Make not part of base system. > rcs - remove and make an optional package? Not GPL. > sdiff - see diff/patch Free version already available. > send-pr - remove! OK, re-implement, if you must. :-) Never works for anyone with an email domain that doesn't match their mail relay's domain anyway. Reenable the web page and call it a day. > sort - another undergrad project based on the man page Trivial. > tar - find alternative, or re-implement pax. > tcpdump - remove from base? Remove from base. > texinfo - find alternative, or remove from base Use real Knuth TeX, instead. > There's actually quite a few there that could be removed out to optional > packages or ports. Some of it though - like the compiler - just has to stay > unless an alternative is found. The ones that could be taken out straight > away without much impact (I think!) are bc/dc, gperf, groff, ipfilter, > libgmp (maybe?), libpam, perl, ptx, rcs and texinfo. That would bring us > down to around two dozen GNU apps distributed with FBSD, and 10 of those > could be re-written to be command line compatible but under BSD license > quite quickly. > > Thoughts? That code is under the GPL doesn't matter for tactical code. All the code you've just named is tactical, not strategic; for example, no one cares what compiled their code, or what compiler runs on a platform, if they are running only binary programs. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EFBFB70.B6121D9E>