*BSD News Article 15579


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.bugs
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!fwi.uva.nl!gene.fwi.uva.nl!bosman
From: bosman@fwi.uva.nl (Cor Bosman)
Subject: Re: elvis bug
Message-ID: <1993May4.013048.7363@fwi.uva.nl>
Sender: news@fwi.uva.nl
Nntp-Posting-Host: quincy.fwi.uva.nl
Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam
References: <1rr14f$t31@Germany.EU.net> <1993Apr30.200643.3856@fwi.uva.nl> 	<1993May1.204154.3399@coe.montana.edu> <hwr.736422092@snert.ka.sub.org> <CONKLIN.93May3154245@ngai.kaleida.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 01:30:48 GMT
Lines: 24

conklin@kaleida.com (J.T. Conklin) writes:

>>>>Why not just use 'vi'? the REAL vi.. im sorry to say so..but to me

>>>Because the real 'vi' is copyrighted software, and I don't want to pay
>>>AT&T $100K U.S. for a license so I can use the 'Real vi'(tm).

>> Hm, in the AT&T editing guide, they remark, that vi is (c) UCBerkeley.

>ex, the command line portion of vi, contains bits and pieces of ed,
>which is owned by AT&T.  We can't get a "real" vi until someone
>replaces the AT&T code with a free equivalent.

I dont know much about copyrights and all that, but..what if
there is a free equivalent of 'vi' available for another unix...
like linux..or whatever...that shouldnt be too hard to port..
or should it?

cor
-- 
|bosman@fwi.uva.nl_   //     | Honest Officer , had I known my health      |
|-----------------\\ //AMIGA | stood in jeopardy I would never had lit one.|
|  PE no.1         \\/       |             -MAXIM (of the Hells Angels)-   |
|__________ Quickly Scotty,beam me up.There is no ox..y..ge..._____________|