HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mccauley@phaeton.asd.sgi.com (Jay McCauley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.mips,alt.cd-rom
Subject: Re: CD-ROM ISO 9660 format...can my system deal with it?
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:47:15 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <C0Ez6A.LDE@dweomer.org>, brian@dweomer.org (Brian Taylor)
writes:
|> I'm interested in ordering the GNU CD-ROM that was just released, but
|> due to some articles in comp.sys.mips a while ago, I'm concerned that
|> my system (a MIPS MAGNUM 4000-PC50 running RISCos 5.0B) couldn't deal
|> with the format. Specifically, I read somewhere that the CD-ROM that
|> came with some (all?) MIPs systems is only for distributing their own
|> media and almost useless for other things.
Yup, unfortunate, but true.  ISO 9660 was "on the list" as a possible
future effort.  There is 9660 support in a CD-ROM kit marketed by what
was our specials group (I lost track of the names at the last reorg;-).
It's kinda expensive, though.
|> 
|> Can anyone confirm or deny this? Also, if anyone has any information
|> on incorporating an ISO-9660 filesystem into my kernel, that would also
|> be most appreciated (thus the Xpost to alt.cd-rom)!
MONDO HARD!  Incorporating file systems is not for the faint of heart!
You'd need a source license to begin with (yes, I guess it's theoretically
possible to do it without one, as the vnode interface is pretty standard).
This is a pretty major undertaking, probably a couple of person months
to get anything worth using.

The way SGI does it for IRIX is via an external daemon, I believe.  If
you have access to one of the IRIX systems, you could copy the stuff over.

|> 
|> Thank you kindly,
|> 
|> Brian
|> -- 
|> Brian Taylor				UUCP:		uunet.ca!dweomer!brian
|> 62 Derry Street				Internet:	brian@dweomer.org
|> Guelph, Ontario, CANADA			Voice:		(519) 824-0884
|> N1E 2C1
Sorry not to be more postitive,
Jay McCauley
RISC/os Raconteur and General Wet Blanket
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
From: coonstot@kimbark.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:49:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.160747.19249@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.173830.18153@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
>writes apropos of the boycott of Apple by the FSF, allegedly initiated
>in order not to "waste FSF resources supporting a company with
>particularly anti-FSF business practices":
>
>>It's not a squabble.  Please don't ask them (us) to compromise their (our)
>>beliefs for your convenience.  You bought the Mac, implicitly supporting
>>Apple's business practices--now live with your decision.  Keep the Mac and
>>forget GNU software or replace the Mac.  The choice is yours.
>
>How interesting.  I would like to find out to find the extent to which
>the Foundation's pursuit of its beliefs in this matter conflicts with
>its tax-exempt status, insofar as it surely contradicts its alleged
>charitable ends.  Is there a lawyer in the house?

This is silly.  A charity is under no obligation to provide
for everyone all of the time.  A charity may elect to dedicate
its time and resources to any goal however it is decided by
that charity's corporation.  Of course, under your current reasoning,
we should call into question any pro-life charity for not contributing
to pro-choice groups.

>
>cordially,
>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>"Les beaulx bastisseurs nouveaulx de pierres mortes ne sont escriptz
>en mon livre de vie.  Je ne bastis que pierres vives: ce sont hommes."

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III



-- 
Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School
        "[T]he problem of history cannot be solved by avoiding it." (B. McGinn)
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4232 talk.philosophy.misc:3178 alt.usage.english:10293 alt.society.anarchy:1037
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 14:45:23 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


In article <1993Jan8.222849.19131@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>BJ:
>> This statement expresses one of several "terms and conditions for
>> copying, distribution and modification" set forth by the "licensor"
>> (aka "owner", or "copyright holder")  which describe and limit the
>> rights of licensees.  It does not describe or limit the rights of
>> the licensor.
>
> This would have been a good distinction, had it been borne out by the
> text of the GPL.  Alas, it is not.

It does not need to be stated explicitly.  The owner of a work always
has the right to use it as they see fit, unless they explicitly assign
such rights to another party.  Since using the GPL does not transfer
ownership, and the FSF publishing a later version of the GPL does not
in any way affect the version attached to a specific program, your
argument is fruitless.

(In the above, I am ignoring such issues as "national security," which
is not relevant.)
-- 
 \  /   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\ \   PGP public key available on request.  MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: mcastle@cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle)
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:12:45 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla, Rolla, MO

In article <C0FuFu.o41@austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Christian
H. L. Moller) writes:
>In article <2B4A0FD5.FD6B@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>> From discussion on this newsgroup, I'm given to understand that
>> someone is working on a truly free (public domain or equivalent)
>> C compiler.  Is this impression correct?  If so, who's doing it?
>
>It's called `gcc', by the good folks at the Free Software Foundation.  You
>can get it, and tons of other stuff, by ftp from a lot of places
>(ftp.uu.net:/systems/gnu and prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu to name a couple, do
>a `dir gcc*', also take a look in ./GNUinfo).  There are also a few `gnu'
>newsgroups (e.g. gnu.announce, gnu.gcc.announce) that can give you more
>information.

No, Christian, you miss the point.  I think Chip knows very much all about 
gcc and the FSF.  GCC is NOT public domain.  It is till copyrighted, by
the FSF.  

What Chip want's  to know about is a _truly_ pd compiler.  I've seen a few
posts here (well, 2 actually I can remember, but I dont' read everything 
posted to this group), I have doubts to their dedication to the project.

Writing a compiler is a daunting project (ask the FSF!).  Writing a portable
compiler, even more so.  While someone may write a complete compiler for 
one machine, and release it into the public domain, with a statement like
"Feel free to use this, and port to other machines!", it becomes quite a 
logistic problem to try to incorporate changes into the original compiler
in a coherent manner.  And I feel it's really more than one person could
handle.

When I see posts like "my friend is working on a pd compiler," I tend to have
doubts.  If I see something like "for our graduate project, we are trying to
implement a portable compiler accross multiple machine, and it will be 
released into the public domain," then I'll tend to give it a little more
credence (after all, the slavedr^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hadvisor will probably just provide
incentive and some coordination).  It's not that I would doubt the sincerity
of an individual to attempt such a project, I just really doubt one person
could do it and remain sane (hmm.... rms....?? nahhhh  :-)

just some random ramblings,
mrc
-- 
Mike Castle .-=NEXUS=-.  Life is like a clock:  You can work constantly
  mcastle@cs.umr.edu     and be right all the time, or not work at all
S087891@UMRVMA.UMR.EDU   and be right at least twice a day.  -- mrc
    We are all of us living in the shadow of Manhattan.  -- Watchmen
From: singhal@cs.utexas.edu (Vivek Singhal)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: How to make texinfo.tex use PostScript fonts?
Date: 7 Jan 1993 10:54:40 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

How do I modify texinfo.tex so that it uses built-in PostScript fonts
instead of the standard TeX bitmap fonts?

Background: I'm trying to generate 2-up printouts of the GNU manuals
(which are in TeXinfo format).  Because this process requires the dvi
output to be scaled (I'm doing something like "dvips -f < gcc.dvi |
psnup -2"), TeX's bitmapped fonts end up looking cruddy.  My
assumption is that by telling TeX to use PostScript fonts instead, I
won't encounter these scaling problems.

After perusing the texinfo.tex file, I saw numerous font definitions
that look like:

...
\font\textbf=cmb10 scaled \mainmagstep 
\font\textit=cmti10 scaled \mainmagstep
\font\textsl=cmsl10 scaled \mainmagstep
\font\textsf=cmss10 scaled \mainmagstep
\font\textsc=cmcsc10 scaled \mainmagstep
\font\texti=cmmi10 scaled \mainmagstep
\font\textsy=cmsy10 scaled \mainmagstep
...

How would I modify these definitions (and the others in this file) to
cause TeX to use the appropriate PostScript fonts?

Thanks,

Vivek

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: singhal@cs.utexas.edu     Phone: (512) 471-9711     Office: TAY 3.104C
USmail: CS Dept. TAY 2.124 \n Univ. of Texas @ Austin \n Austin, TX 78712-1188
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:27:06
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1iik7pINN4qf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu's message of 8 Jan 93 01:09:13 GMT

In article <1iik7pINN4qf@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>There is also the possibility that they would simply arrange things so that
>the source you get is not all you need.  Suppose, for example, someone wanted
>to use GNU Emacs in a proprietary editor for Microsoft Windows.  What would    
>stop them from doing the following:
>
>        1. Find the places where they want to make proprietary changes to  
>        GNU Emacs.
>
>        2. Rewrite those parts so that they depend on a DLL (dynamic link
>        library) to perform the functions that they want to do    
>        proprietarily (sp?).
>
>        3. Distribute the modified GNU Emacs under GPL.
>
>        4. Implement a proprietary DLL, which is not distributed under
>        GPL.
>
>Is this a violation of GPL?

Yes.  The GPL says, in part:

      2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
    of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
    distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
    above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

        ...

        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
        whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
        part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
        parties under the terms of this License.


(here the "no charge" refers to a licensing fee, not a distribution fee)

There are two reasons for this.

First, a general one.  If we permitted company A to make a propriatary
file, and company B to distribute GNU software linked with that file,
the effect would be to make a hole in the GPL big enough to drive a
truck through.  This would be carte blanche for withholding the source
code for all sorts of modifications and extensions to GNU software.

Giving all users access to the source code is one of our main
goals, so this consequence is definitely something to avoid.

More directly, the versions of GNU software linked with proprietary
libraries would not really be free software as we intend the term--they
would not come with full source code that enables users to change and
recompile the program.

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:42:35 GMT

In article <2B4BC9F1.666E@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:

>I propose that a software system can have either industry acceptance
>or GPL coverage, but not both.  I make one exception: software
>development tools.  After all, tools are by and large obtained at
>specific programmer request, and programmers love source code.

I agree with this. Gcc is the prime example, and Emacs the next-to-prime
example. In fact, they feed on each other, you need a compiler to
compile Emacs and an editor to edit the compiler source code :-)

But when "users" are involved... No.

Bengt.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
X-Attributions-By: Supercite 2.2
X-Disclaimer: These opinions are mine: others available on request.
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
X-Newsreader: GNUS 3.14.1
	<1993Jan2.043903.18936@husc3.harvard.edu> <C08sBA.Gp8@world.std.com>
	<1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:26:09 GMT

>>>>> "MZ" == Michael Zeleny <zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu> writes:

MZ> The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation
MZ> to the FSF; on the other hand, as a certified misanthrope with no
MZ> ready ftp access, I have no way to obtain a copy for nothing.

You'll be telling us next that you'd like the FSF to donate you a Sun
SPARC-II so that you can run the software at no cost to yourself.
Naturally they'd pay for your electricity supply, too.

Just how free (== no cost) do you want it?

Kevin
--
.signature: no such file or directory
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:38:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.161116.4263@maths.tcd.ie>, tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes:
>As a humble Mac user,
>I find your boycott most upsetting.
>I'm sure no-one in Apple is losing sleep over it.

The goal of the boycott is to not waste FSF resources supporting a company
with particularly anti-FSF business practices.   The goal is not to cause
Apple grief. 

>And it doesn't affect anyone at FSF,
>as you all have your personal Sparcs under the bed.

I believe FSF had a Mac or two at the time the boycott was imposed.  At any
rate, it's been in effect long enough for substitutions to have been made.

>We -- the great unSunned masses --
>are the only people affected.

Wrong--FSF has been spared the overhead of supporting Mac ports, which would
not exactly be negligable.

>Please try to think of it from our point of view,
>and find some other way to pursue your squabble.

It's not a squabble.  Please don't ask them (us) to compromise their (our)
beliefs for your convenience.  You bought the Mac, implicitly supporting
Apple's business practices--now live with your decision.  Keep the Mac and
forget GNU software or replace the Mac.  The choice is yours.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 12 Jan 1993 07:36:54 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <930111.181024.7A8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
>barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>> There's an explicit exception in the GPL for OS libraries:
>The Microsoft C libraries aren't supplied with the MS-DOS OS.  So does that
>mean MS have to give me the source because someone's developed an MS C port
>of GCC?

Good question.  The GPL doesn't specifically mention this case.  However,
this doesn't mean that MS has to give you the source.  Rather, it means
that no one can distribute a port of GCC compiled with MS C, due to the
following clause: "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously
your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations,
then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."

>>     These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
>>     identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>>     and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>>     themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>>     sections when you distribute them as separate works.
>
>What a horrendously woolly definition.  That should make sure no commercial
>software company touches GPL software.  Are C library routines an independent
>and separate work?  Who can tell.

Sure they are.  People buy C compilers and libraries as independent and
separate products from applications.  A C library clearly isn't a
spreadsheet, word processor, database, etc.

>I don't remember this stuff.  Is it from a new version of the GPL?

Version 2, dated June 1991.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: hammild@westminster.ac.uk (Damien Hammil)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: gcc and solaris 2
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:02:24 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Westminster



What's the situation with gcc and solaris 2 ???


replies by email only please


many thanks

damian.


-- 
Damian Hamill               	    	| dh4@cel.uucp or dh4@crosfield.co.uk
Crosfield Electronics Ltd           	| pstn: +44 442 230000 x3394
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: FSF actions vs purposes
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:48:03 GMT

From time to time, people accuse the FSF of being dishonest or
hypocritical.  These people generally misunderstand what the FSF is
doing or its aims or reasons; what they criticize doesn't match the
FSF.

We try hard to tell people what we are doing and why.  We published
the GNU Manfesto at the very beginning, and we include it with every
copy of Emacs.  We explain our aims in the GNU's Bulletin, which we
publish on paper and on the net twice a year.

But many users seem to find out about GNU software without reading
these things, and they formulate an inaccurate idea of what we stand
for.

Eventually they discover facts that don't jibe with this idea, and
they may then conclude that we are false to "our own" principles.  Of
course, our real principles are something else, but they don't realize
that.  Sometimes inaccurate facts come into the process as well.

It is a shame if people have misunderstandings about what GNU stands
for--even if the result is that they think they agree.  To help
prevent this, I plan to write a few messages addressing philosophical
issues, and have them posted from time to time.
From: ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 93 05:06:28 GMT
Organization: Infinity Development, Waltham, MA

oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:

>Ian Lance Taylor writes [in response to MZ]:

>   			 ...All freedom exists under a certain set of
>   more or less onerous restrictions.  Your argument against the GPL
>   seems to me to be that the GPL is sufficiently onerous that it does
>   not deserve to be called free.

>compare and contrast with the restrictions on the following [eg]: BSD source,
>the X window system and related software, tex, kermit, c-news, icon, CMU lisp,
>byacc ...

>qed.

Those programs are also free.  Does one form of freedom preclude all
others?

As I said in my original post, there are many restrictions on life in
the U.S.A.  There are countries which have fewer restrictions.  Does
that mean that the U.S.A. is not a free country?  (I am not interested
in whether the U.S.A. is actually a free country, I am interested in
whether it is not free because other countries have fewer
restrictions).

Why not tell me what onerous restrictions are applied by the GPL that
should not be applied, and why there are so onerous that the program
is not free?  After all this arguing, that should be simple.  You can
even apply it to a real case; perhaps you can convince me to release
UUCP as a ``truly free'' program rather than under the GPL (actually,
that's probably not true, since my reasons for using the GPL have
little to do with freedom in any sense; but you could try).
-- 
Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
`` `The world can grow into an ordered place where all are equal before
    the law.  And the law is just.  Honest.  Without graft.'
   `Is that so important if you are starving?' ''
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4199 talk.philosophy.misc:3156
From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters)
Subject: Re: What is the LGPL?
Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu
Organization: NRAO
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:50:48 GMT

In article 93Jan6130835@calamityjane.edscom.demon.co.uk, kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey) writes:
>Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I can't find `LGPL' in $EMACS/etc/FAQ.
>
>So what is it?

The LGPL is the GNU library general public license.  You can get it from
prep.ai.mit.edu as COPYING-LIB or find it in the GNU libc distribution.

It differs from the GPL in allowing you to get away with not making the
sources available for an application linked with the library in question.
You are required to make the application available in a form that can
be linked with a new (hopefully improved) version of the library however.

	Chris Flatters
	cflatter@nrao.edu


Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4295 comp.sys.mips:1155 alt.cd-rom:5529
From: gbs@kolob.mti.sgi.com (Greg Shippen)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.mips,alt.cd-rom
Subject: Re: CD-ROM ISO 9660 format...can my system deal with it?
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:51:46 GMT
Reply-To: gbs@mti.sgi.com
Organization: Silicon Graphics Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: kolob.mti.sgi.com

In article <C0Ez6A.LDE@dweomer.org>, brian@dweomer.org (Brian Taylor) writes:
> I'm interested in ordering the GNU CD-ROM that was just released, but
> due to some articles in comp.sys.mips a while ago, I'm concerned that
> my system (a MIPS MAGNUM 4000-PC50 running RISCos 5.0B) couldn't deal
> with the format. Specifically, I read somewhere that the CD-ROM that
> came with some (all?) MIPs systems is only for distributing their own
> media and almost useless for other things.
> 
> Can anyone confirm or deny this? Also, if anyone has any information
> on incorporating an ISO-9660 filesystem into my kernel, that would also
> be most appreciated (thus the Xpost to alt.cd-rom)!
> 
> Thank you kindly,
> 
> Brian
> -- 
> Brian Taylor			UUCP:		uunet.ca!dweomer!brian
> 62 Derry Street		Internet:	brian@dweomer.org
> Guelph, Ontario, CANADA	Voice:		(519) 824-0884
> N1E 2C1


Well, it is true that RISC/os doesn't support ISO-9660 as Jay MaCauley
indicated, but one possibility is to run your system under NT.  The 
MAGNUM 4000-PC50 is supported on the NT CD-ROM and will read 
ISO-9660 format just fine.  NT also supports most of the standard 
TCP/IP stuff so you could bring your system up in NT and rcp the stuff to 
another machine talking TCP/IP.

The only cost here is a $69 CD from Microsoft (and some time and disk
reorg).  This assumes you have the conversion disk to convert the PROM 
to NT of course.

-- 
Gregory B. Shippen
Silicon Graphics Inc./MIPS Technology Inc.			gbs@mti.sgi.com
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. M/S 10L-175                      
Mountain View, CA  94039 (415) 390-4483
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss