Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Lilax] Re: [lalugs] Microsoft lobbying against the GPL

Expand Messages
  • Martin Baehr
    ... absolutely. ... correct! greetings, martin. -- i am looking for a new job anywhere in the world, doing pike development and/or training and/or unix and
    Message 1 of 9 , May 8, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 06:26:02PM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
      > So the GPL doesn't prevent forking, but it does allow healing
      > the damage caused by forks.
      > Does that sound accurate to you?

      absolutely.

      > The BSD license is great for a lot of things, but it doesn't
      > have this particular feature.

      correct!

      greetings, martin.
      --
      i am looking for a new job anywhere in the world, doing pike development
      and/or training and/or unix and roxen system administration.
      --
      pike programmer On The Verge | www.hb2.tuwien.ac.at
      Los Angeles | db.hb2.tuwien.ac.at
      unix systemadministrator iaeste.or.at iaeste.tuwien.ac.at
      www.archlab.tuwien.ac.at black.linux-m68k.org
      Martin B"ahr stuts.org bahai.at mud.at is.schon.org
      http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/
    • Christopher Smith
      ... Hmm... I looked at his article, and the citing he makes about Lucid emacs (XEmacs) vs. GNU Emacs is really innaccurate. The truth (as I remember it) was
      Message 2 of 9 , May 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 08:21:15AM -0700, Steve M Bibayoff wrote:
        > Which all of this begs the question could anyone point to a fork in GPL
        > code that wasn't completly forked because of direction of use(Linux x86
        > vs. Linux PPC) or eventually recombined(gcc vs. egc)?
        >
        > An clearer explantion of what I am trying to ask was presented at
        > a "brown-bag presentation" at Linuxcare by Rick Moen. A recap is
        > here:http://www.linuxcare.com/viewpoints/article/11-17-99.epl
        > There is an updated version on Rick's server(linuxmafia.com), but it
        > appears to be unreachable at the current moment.

        Hmm... I looked at his article, and the citing he makes about Lucid
        emacs (XEmacs) vs. GNU Emacs is really innaccurate.

        The truth (as I remember it) was that proprietary emacs's where being
        built from public domain emacs code back before GNU emacs
        existed. Probably the most well known of these was Gosemacs (short for
        Gosling emacs --yup, written by the same guy who brought us
        Java). This pissed off a number of people, but in particular it
        provided a lot of motivation for RMS to start up the GNU project & the
        FSF.

        Part of this project created GNU emacs. GNU emacs proved to be a damn
        good version of emacs, and Lucid decided they would like to use it as
        a foundation for the Unix development tools. However, they needed some
        more features in it. At this time we were back in the era of GNU Emacs
        18, which was pretty ignorant (really completely ignorant) about
        GUI's. The FSF was already working on GNU Emacs 19, which among other
        things would be GUI-aware. Lucid actually hired a GNU developer to
        work on building GNU emacs 19. However, for a ton of reasons (both
        technical and social) that JWZ describes better than I can, Lucid
        and GNU were unable to align their goals. Rather than abandoning the
        substancial development efforts they'd already made Lucid proceeded to
        continue independantly on their efforts. Of course, GNU emacs fell
        under the GPL (and had since GNU Emacs version 1), and as such, Lucid
        had no choice but to release the source code for their "enhanced"
        version once they distributed the product. This was zero problem for
        Lucid because they had intended to do this all along, the only thing
        that changed was that their version was a fork with the FSF's own
        version.

        Eventually Lucid Emacs became XEmacs. However, it's worth emphasizing
        that Lucid/X Emacs was NEVER anything but free software, and we can
        thank the GPL for this.

        In terms of popularity, I'd say Emacs is as popular as it ever was
        (arguably not a grand achievement ;-), XEmacs and GNU Emacs enjoy a
        surprising amount of compatibility, and I wouldn't exactly say that,
        within the Emacs community, GNU Emacs has an overwhelming
        representation compared to XEmacs.

        Just wan't to clear that up. ;-)

        --Chris
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.