Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!pavo.csi.cam.ac.uk!camcus!pc123
From: pc123@cus.cam.ac.uk (Pete Chown)
Subject: GPL again. Sigh. (was Re: So you say you want an interim release...)
In-Reply-To: sef@kithrup.com's message of Tue, 4 May 1993 23:50:36 GMT
Message-ID: <PC123.93May5232259@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>
Sender: news@infodev.cam.ac.uk (USENET news)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
References: <1qvpc9$1e8@agate.berkeley.edu> <C5sCvr.3G1@unx.sas.com>
<CGD.93Apr20124457@gaia.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
<PC123.93May5000713@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> <C6J0wq.40n@kithrup.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 1993 22:23:06 GMT
Lines: 72
I don't want to start this flame war off again, I only posted on the
subject because I wanted to suggest setting up an archive of ported
GNU software for those who didn't mind the GPL. I would welcome
feedback on this, since I might do it if people think it's a good
idea.
So I will only reply briefly to what follows:
In article <C6J0wq.40n@kithrup.com> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
In article <PC123.93May5000713@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> pc123@cus.cam.ac.uk (Pete Chown) writes:
>1. The include files seem confused, although the situation has
>improved rather of late. Particular problems are experienced when you
>try to work with a new version of gcc that has some of its own include
>files - the number of clashes are quite surprising. But we can't use
>glibc, or the Linux libc, both of which are much better because they
>are under the GPL.
Wrong. The problem is with gcc. The net/2 (and, thus, 386bsd, netbsd,
bsd/386, and 4.4bsd) header files are most certainly *NOT* confused.
That's a matter of opinion... I've had some clashes between the
components of the Net-2 include files as well. By the way, if you
contradict people as forcefully as by saying "Wrong. ..." you will do
everyone a disservice by starting the flame war off again. Other
people will flame you, even if I don't.
In addition, glibc, and the Linux libc, are not better "because they are
under the GPL." They are better despite being GPL'd...
Quite so. I missed out a comma, causing you to make a parse error. I
leave you to work out the details... :-)
many, many fine
and talented programmers will not work on GPL'd library code, or, if they
do, they do so reluctantly. Other people have had to write their own
libraries because they could not use GPL'd code, and, thus, they concentrate
all their efforts on their own -- when they might have shared their code
if they'd started from, say, Net/2's libc.
You make the GPL sound like the greatest tragedy outside Shakespeare.
(That's assuming Linux' libc
is better; I do not believe it is, personally, nor glibc.)
I used the Linux libc a lot, I haven't used glibc much at all. The
Linux libc is certainly free of a lot of the annoying glitches in the
BSD one.
>2. The DBM library seems most peculiar. Linking programs to it often
>seems to give link errors due to non-existent routines.
The compatable routines were, apparantly, deliberately
not included in Net/2, for reasons I don't really understand :).
Well you said it!
1. I can make a case that the LGPL buys one nothing over the GPL.
I read it again, and I believe you are right.
3. Lots of people object to the GPL on purely philosophical and
political terms. Just because you cannot understand them does not
invalidate them, any more than their beliefs invalidate the FSF.
When did I say that it did? What I was suggesting was creating an
archive of GNU software, so that people are FREE TO CHOOSE whether
they want GPL or Berkeley copyright.
--
---------------------------------------------+ "A tight hat can be stretched.
Pete Chown, pc123@phx.cam.ac.uk (Internet) | First damp the head with steam
pc123@uk.ac.cam.phx (Janet :-) -+ from a boiling kettle."