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..._____________|