On Tue, 21 Sep 1999 20:06:41 EST, "Pedro Fernando Giffuni" wrote:
> Gawk has more features, but I saw a test somewhere that showed a
> bug in the FreeBSD version. I can dig it up if someone is really
> interested.
PR 13615
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "
The three of them are on the ports tree. mawk and gawk are GPL'd, nawk
is not.
I'm not sure if nawk is fully POSIX compliant but it is the "new" awk
described in Kernighans' book.
Yes mawk is the fastest of the three, but I'm not sure if speed is the
most important feature in a scripting langua
Pedro Fernando Giffuni wrote:
>Yes, I know that gawk is faster, but isn't nawk the one true (new) awk?
>From my experience, the awk downloadable from Kernighan's web page
(should be "nawk", shouldn't it?) is a little bit faster on average
than gawk. Probably not much that it would really matter
> Tradition counts. GLOBAL isn't quite sendmail.
On the other hand, sendmail is easier to extract and isolate (there are
no sendmail-specific patches to nvi, for example), and there are several
alternative packages (postfix, exim, qmail, smail, etc) that one might
want to *replace* sendmail with
Tradition counts. GLOBAL isn't quite sendmail.
Cheers,
Jerry Hicks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Peter Wemm wrote:
> Will you be assigning the copyright to the FSF? (ie: you'll never be able
> to change your mind? 50 years is a long time...)
I will keep the right.
Thank you for your advice.
--
Shigio Yamaguchi - Tama Communications Corporation
Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED], WWW: http://www.tamac
Mats Lofkvist wrote:
> But bugfixes and/or developments needed by the core FreeBSD tools
> will have to be done on the BSD licensed version of global
> (since the core system isn't supposed to depend on ports),
> isn't this going to lead to the split of the global development
> in two?
You are ri
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
> Jamie Bowden wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
> >
> > :Will you be assigning the copyright to the FSF? (ie: you'll never be able
> > :to change your mind? 50 years is a long time...)
> >
> > 70 now I believe. Changed to be compatible with the
> > :Will you be assigning the copyright to the FSF? (ie: you'll never be able
> > :to change your mind? 50 years is a long time...)
> >
> > 70 now I believe. Changed to be compatible with the euros, who are all 70
> > years apparently.
>
> If I understand things correctly, there will soon be
Jamie Bowden wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> :Will you be assigning the copyright to the FSF? (ie: you'll never be able
> :to change your mind? 50 years is a long time...)
>
> 70 now I believe. Changed to be compatible with the euros, who are all 70
> years apparently.
I was reading this thread on the digest, and well... nawk has been in
the ports tree for some time now, not to mention that OpenBSD adopted
it...
Yes, I know that gawk is faster, but isn't nawk the one true (new) awk?
I'm not sure if we are using some GNU awk extension on our installation,
but
>
> On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> :Will you be assigning the copyright to the FSF? (ie: you'll never be able
> :to change your mind? 50 years is a long time...)
>
> 70 now I believe. Changed to be compatible with the euros, who are all 70
> years apparently.
If I understand th
> I think that Jerry, in using GLOBAL as an example to push his desire for a
> smaller FreeBSD, rather clouded the issue. I would wish that, if Shigio
> doesn't actually assign the copyright to the FSF, then he can release it
> under both copyrights, and please everyone. If Jerry wants to have
On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
:Will you be assigning the copyright to the FSF? (ie: you'll never be able
:to change your mind? 50 years is a long time...)
70 now I believe. Changed to be compatible with the euros, who are all 70
years apparently.
Jamie Bowden
--
If we've got to f
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Mats Lofkvist wrote:
> Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
> > It seems that you misunderstand.
> > Current GLOBAL(3.53 and earlier) is BSD-style licensed and it is true for ever.
> > I agree with the plan to make a ports of GNU/GLOBAL in the future.
> > But you need not remove BSD/GLOBA
Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
> It seems that you misunderstand.
> Current GLOBAL(3.53 and earlier) is BSD-style licensed and it is true for ever.
> I agree with the plan to make a ports of GNU/GLOBAL in the future.
> But you need not remove BSD/GLOBAL from source tree.
But bugfixes and/or developments
> like a virus to everything it touches. For this reason, the FreeBSD Project
> has decided no GPL code will be included in the system itself, unless the
Actually, that's not *quite* accurate. What we decided was that GNU
code would be kept well-segregated from the rest, just to make it
clear w
Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
>
> Michael Kennett wrote:
>
> > Does the license really matter? Surely the important consideration is quality
> > of the code?
>
> I agree with you.
No, the license really does matter if we want to keep FreeBSD FREE. We do.
--
"Where am I, and what am I
Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
>
> > There are some types of software for which the GPL is the best license.
> > In my opinion, programming tools of many sorts -- compilers, linkers,
> > editors, assemblers -- fit into this category. Contrary to what some
>
> Tag system doesn't fit into this category?
> > imho, global (a fine software package) shouldn't have been in the
> > OS source tree anyway. To me, the proper place seems to be in the
> > ports collection along with many other development utilities.
> It seems that you misunderstand.
> Current GLOBAL(3.53 and earlier) is BSD-style licens
On Mon, Sep 20, 1999, Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
> But GPLed command brings no problem, because the rest of the system just
> "utilize" it, not "use it. GPL is not applied to "utilize". So the rest of
> the system is safe from GPL.
You cannot modify and incorporate a GPL command into a product
wh
Peter Wemm wrote:
> I think we should also remove the nvi patches as it contains global derived
> code. Since GPL is incompatable with the (bsd-style) nvi license and the
> global patches add code to nvi, then it would be better to remove the
> conflicting code.
You need not remove it, because I
Michael Kennett wrote:
> As the owner/author of a piece of software, you can distribute the source
> code under any license that you like (GNU/BSD/Artistic etc...). Indeed, there
> is no reason to choose just a single license under which you distribute your
> code -- it should be possible for you
> There are some types of software for which the GPL is the best license.
> In my opinion, programming tools of many sorts -- compilers, linkers,
> editors, assemblers -- fit into this category. Contrary to what some
Tag system doesn't fit into this category?
> believe, we BSD'ers are not rabid
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> imho, global (a fine software package) shouldn't have been in the
> OS source tree anyway. To me, the proper place seems to be in the
> ports collection along with many other development utilities.
It seems that you misunderstand.
Current GLOBAL(3.53 and earlier) is BSD-s
Doug wrote:
> possible. To my (albeit limited) knowledge nothing in the base depends on
> GLOBAL, so I would be one of those who would be calling for its removal
> from the base. Of course, a port of your program would be welcome, and in
Nvi(1), more(1) and build system(bsd.*.mk) depends on GLOBA
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> I don't see much of a problem, other than requiring its removal
> from the FreeBSD source tree. Although FreeBSD has a 'contrib'
> and 'gnu' hierarchy in the source tree, I believe the trend
> should be to reduce the existing members there and also to avoid
> adding new one
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
> I don't see much of a problem, other than requiring its removal
> from the FreeBSD source tree. Although FreeBSD has a 'contrib'
> and 'gnu' hierarchy in the source tree, I believe the trend
> should be to reduce the existing members there and also to avoid
> adding new on
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
>
> I don't see much of a problem, other than requiring its removal
> from the FreeBSD source tree. Although FreeBSD has a 'contrib'
> and 'gnu' hierarchy in the source tree, I believe the trend
> should be to reduce the existing members there and also to avoid
> adding new
Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
>
> I'm the author of GLOBAL source code tag system.
>
> I have decided to release next version of GLOBAL as a GNU software.
> It means that it will be released under GPL instead of BSD license.
>
> This decision was made by practical reason, not by doctrine reason.
Ther
W Gerald Hicks wrote:
>
> I don't see much of a problem, other than requiring its removal
> from the FreeBSD source tree. Although FreeBSD has a 'contrib'
> and 'gnu' hierarchy in the source tree, I believe the trend
> should be to reduce the existing members there and also to avoid
> adding new
Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
>
> I'm the author of GLOBAL source code tag system.
>
> I have decided to release next version of GLOBAL as a GNU software.
> It means that it will be released under GPL instead of BSD license.
>
> This decision was made by practical reason, not by doctrine reason.
The
You state that you have made up your mind about this decision, so I
won't
try to persuade you otherwise. I do think that there are some things that
you should think about though.
Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
>
> I'm the author of GLOBAL source code tag system.
>
> I have decided to release
You state that you have made up your mind about this decision, so I won't
try to persuade you otherwise. I do think that there are some things that
you should think about though.
Shigio Yamaguchi wrote:
>
> I'm the author of GLOBAL source code tag system.
>
> I have decided to release
I don't see much of a problem, other than requiring its removal
from the FreeBSD source tree. Although FreeBSD has a 'contrib'
and 'gnu' hierarchy in the source tree, I believe the trend
should be to reduce the existing members there and also to avoid
adding new ones.
imho, global (a fine softwar
I don't see much of a problem, other than requiring its removal
from the FreeBSD source tree. Although FreeBSD has a 'contrib'
and 'gnu' hierarchy in the source tree, I believe the trend
should be to reduce the existing members there and also to avoid
adding new ones.
imho, global (a fine softwa
Hi Shigio,
As the owner/author of a piece of software, you can distribute the source
code under any license that you like (GNU/BSD/Artistic etc...). Indeed, there
is no reason to choose just a single license under which you distribute your
code -- it should be possible for you to distribute the co
Hi Shigio,
As the owner/author of a piece of software, you can distribute the source
code under any license that you like (GNU/BSD/Artistic etc...). Indeed, there
is no reason to choose just a single license under which you distribute your
code -- it should be possible for you to distribute the c
38 matches
Mail list logo
