Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #236210 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-29 04:56 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-11-05 09:23 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-29 04:56 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-29 07:30 +0000
bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-10-29 15:00 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-29 23:09 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-10-30 00:49 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-10-30 13:26 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-10-30 22:37 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 01:06 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:42 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:11 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-02 13:28 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-02 20:10 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-03 13:17 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 20:39 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 01:02 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-04 14:00 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:41 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-05 13:53 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 19:00 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-06 13:59 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-06 07:43 -0700
Re: bash on macOS scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-06 15:42 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-06 10:48 -0700
Re: bash on macOS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-06 18:21 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-06 18:16 +0000
Re: bash on macOS antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-06 21:52 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-07 00:35 +0000
Portability of 'echo -n' (was: Re: bash on macOS) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-07 10:02 +0000
Re: Portability of 'echo -n' antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-07 21:24 +0000
Re: Portability of 'echo -n' Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-07 22:25 +0000
Re: Portability of 'echo -n' Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-08 00:25 +0000
Re: Portability of 'echo -n' Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-09 14:38 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:43 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-06 20:42 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> - 2026-11-09 14:05 +0000
Re: bash on macOS Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-09 22:23 +0800
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-09 16:00 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-09 22:13 +0000
Re: bash on macOS (was: Emacs Turns 50) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-10 01:21 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-10-29 15:51 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-30 12:16 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-10-30 17:49 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-31 01:13 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 18:45 +0000
macOS Tivoization (was: Re: Emacs Turns 50) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-01 01:17 +0000
Re: macOS Tivoization (was: Re: Emacs Turns 50) Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> - 2026-11-04 12:14 +0000
Re: macOS Tivoization Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-11-04 15:12 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-01 15:06 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-30 18:24 -0400
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-11-09 22:25 +0800
Re: Emacs Turns 50 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-09 19:58 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-10-30 18:20 -0400
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-10-30 23:45 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> - 2026-10-31 15:28 +0100
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-11-03 17:05 +0200
Re: Emacs Turns 50 John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-11-03 21:16 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-03 22:22 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-11-04 07:14 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-04 08:24 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-11-06 01:27 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Daniel <me@fuhgitabutit.com> - 2026-11-04 19:19 -0800
Re: Emacs Turns 50 ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-11-05 03:21 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 03:33 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-05 15:04 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-11-05 16:13 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-11-05 09:26 -0700
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 19:06 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-05 19:38 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:09 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-11-06 17:59 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-05 03:26 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Don_from_AZ <djatechNOSPAM@comcast.net.invalid> - 2026-11-04 21:09 -0700
Re: Emacs Turns 50 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-11-05 06:51 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-11-05 19:17 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 22:59 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> - 2026-11-06 00:12 +0100
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-11-05 23:24 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-11-08 14:26 +0000
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Daniel <me@fuhgitabutit.com> - 2026-11-05 23:26 -0800
Re: Emacs Turns 50 Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-11-05 09:23 +0000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 12:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11c21qj$61g0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236214 |
On 2026-10-29, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 04:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> It seems to me, the move away from GNU software has to do with the >> adoption of version 3 of the GPL. Something new in that version is being >> seen by certain folks in Apple as a threat, where they were happy to >> bundle and redistribute software that was licensed under GPLv2. > > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html > > I'm not a lawyer so I cannot figure out this steaming pile of legalese. In short, if a corporation is arguing that GPLv3 is a reason not to use software or newer versions under that license, you probably should steer clear of that corporation, that means either they don't intend to honor the freedoms they need to honor in strong copyleft, or that they're trying to reserve the right of defeating these freedoms with patent-wrangling. Or is there something else I've forgotten about? IIRC GPLv3 was mostly or completely about spelling out what were the expected implications in GPLv2, but which some corporations, notably TiVo, managed to circumvent and get away with it. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 17:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea |
| Message-ID | <11c2las$scl$1@gal.iecc.com> |
| In reply to | #236234 |
According to Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>: >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html >> >> I'm not a lawyer so I cannot figure out this steaming pile of legalese. > >In short, if a corporation is arguing that GPLv3 is a reason not to use >software or newer versions under that license, you probably should steer >clear of that corporation, that means either they don't intend to honor >the freedoms they need to honor in strong copyleft, or that they're >trying to reserve the right of defeating these freedoms with >patent-wrangling. > >Or is there something else I've forgotten about? Yes. Apple signs the software they distribute. As I read the GPLv3, if they ever signed a piece of GPLv3 software, they'd be required to sign every modified version of it, no matter how full of malware it was. That's nuts. -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 01:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea |
| Message-ID | <11c3fcj$n777$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236241 |
On 2026-10-30, John Levine wrote: > According to Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>: > >> [was this by rbowman?:] >>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html >>> >>> I'm not a lawyer so I cannot figure out this steaming pile of legalese. >> >>In short, if a corporation is arguing that GPLv3 is a reason not to use >>software or newer versions under that license, you probably should steer >>clear of that corporation, that means either they don't intend to honor >>the freedoms they need to honor in strong copyleft, or that they're >>trying to reserve the right of defeating these freedoms with >>patent-wrangling. >> >>Or is there something else I've forgotten about? > > Yes. > > Apple signs the software they distribute. As I read the GPLv3, if they > ever signed a piece of GPLv3 software, they'd be required to sign > every modified version of it, no matter how full of malware it was. > That's nuts. From what I recall, they only have to do that if they reject installation of modified versions that have been signed with other keys or not signed at all. So if it gets to that point, it's *their* choice of complicating things, and it's also clear they're locking people out of modifying the free software. (And it'd be a plain example of TiVoization.) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 18:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea |
| Message-ID | <11c5d0p$1bq2m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236241 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 17:49:16 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote: > Apple signs the software they distribute. As I read the GPLv3, if they > ever signed a piece of GPLv3 software, they'd be required to sign every > modified version of it, no matter how full of malware it was. That's > nuts. I'm sorry, I'm not following. Would you you explain? Much appreciated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 01:17 +0000 |
| Subject | macOS Tivoization (was: Re: Emacs Turns 50) |
| Message-ID | <11c63uk$1iflt$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236262 |
On 2026-10-31, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 17:49:16 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote: > > >> Apple signs the software they distribute. As I read the GPLv3, if they >> ever signed a piece of GPLv3 software, they'd be required to sign every >> modified version of it, no matter how full of malware it was. That's >> nuts. > > I'm sorry, I'm not following. > Would you you explain? > > Much appreciated. This probably means you can only install bash packages that have been signed with prcivate keys of Apple, at least as part of the operating system's install. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tapiro Ubriaco <interwebs.dude@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 12:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: macOS Tivoization (was: Re: Emacs Turns 50) |
| Message-ID | <11cf7j5$ghhn$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236268 |
On Sun, 01 Nov 2026 01:17:07 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-10-31, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 17:49:16 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote: >> >> >>> Apple signs the software they distribute. As I read the GPLv3, if they >>> ever signed a piece of GPLv3 software, they'd be required to sign >>> every modified version of it, no matter how full of malware it was. >>> That's nuts. >> >> I'm sorry, I'm not following. >> Would you you explain? >> >> Much appreciated. > > This probably means you can only install bash packages that have been > signed with prcivate keys of Apple, at least as part of the operating > system's install. Yes, fine, but what about "being required to sign every modified version of it"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 15:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: macOS Tivoization |
| Message-ID | <11cfi02$orjs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236467 |
On 2026-11-04, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: > On Sun, 01 Nov 2026 01:17:07 +0000, Nuno Silva wrote: > >> On 2026-10-31, Tapiro Ubriaco wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 17:49:16 -0000 (UTC), John Levine wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Apple signs the software they distribute. As I read the GPLv3, if they >>>> ever signed a piece of GPLv3 software, they'd be required to sign >>>> every modified version of it, no matter how full of malware it was. >>>> That's nuts. >>> >>> I'm sorry, I'm not following. >>> Would you you explain? >>> >>> Much appreciated. >> >> This probably means you can only install bash packages that have been >> signed with prcivate keys of Apple, at least as part of the operating >> system's install. > > Yes, fine, but what about "being required to sign every modified version > of it"? If they only allow their own keys to sign software to install at that level, then that's what they have to do in order to ensure users can exercise their right to modify the free software, otherwise they're basically trying to get away with GPL violation. GPLv3 made this more explicit. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-01 15:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Emacs Turns 50, gpl is still a bad idea |
| Message-ID | <11c7khb$1455i$5@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #236241 |
In alt.folklore.computers John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>In short, if a corporation is arguing that GPLv3 is a reason not to use
>>software or newer versions under that license, you probably should steer
>>clear of that corporation, that means either they don't intend to honor
>>the freedoms they need to honor in strong copyleft, or that they're
>>trying to reserve the right of defeating these freedoms with
>>patent-wrangling.
>>
>>Or is there something else I've forgotten about?
>
> Yes.
>
> Apple signs the software they distribute. As I read the GPLv3, if they
> ever signed a piece of GPLv3 software, they'd be required to sign
> every modified version of it, no matter how full of malware it was.
> That's nuts.
IIUC currenlty in iOS user can istall additional software only
when it is signed by Apple. _That_ is nuts, users should own
machines that thay paid for and as owners thay should be able
to install whatever software they wish. Of course, what
users want to install could turn out to be malware, but
users who have enough trust in Apple could opt to install only
Apple-signed software. Othere should be free to install
what they want.
AFAICS GPLv3 require that users can install modified versions
of software. This is easily solvable by having additional
signing keys. One possibility is that people with physical
access to "virgin" machine can access administrative interface
and install additional keys. User who wish so could secure
access to administrative interface. Another possiblity is
to have machine specific signing keys issued to owner of the
machine. The second puts some burden on Apple (they would have
to distribute keys). Assuming access to Internet one could use
certificate system so that intalled binaries would be checked that
they are signed by appropriate entity and users could choose
which keys they accept (that is probably more convenient variation
of the first approach).
Current Apple policy is marginally easier to implement than the
above. But it looks that current policy is used by Apple
mainly due to monopoly aspects: it gives Appla monopoly control
of the whole iOS software market and Apple charges fee to allow
third party access to that market. Clearly, user managed keys
would eliminate this monoply, leading to more healthy market
but less revenue to Apple.
BTW: In current political/security climate I would expect states
to have laws that all software installed on machines sold in
any given state be signed by appropriate authority of this state.
And at least bigger states should insist on access to source code
and that distributed software mathes the sources. Leaving
critical infrastructure like software and software controlled
devices at mercy of foreign companies looks highly irresponsible.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 18:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11c35fe$l9fo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236234 |
Nuno Silva wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): > On 2026-10-29, rbowman wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 04:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> It seems to me, the move away from GNU software has to do with the >>> adoption of version 3 of the GPL. Something new in that version is being >>> seen by certain folks in Apple as a threat, where they were happy to >>> bundle and redistribute software that was licensed under GPLv2. >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html >> >> I'm not a lawyer so I cannot figure out this steaming pile of legalese. > > In short, if a corporation is arguing that GPLv3 is a reason not to use > software or newer versions under that license, you probably should steer > clear of that corporation, that means either they don't intend to honor > the freedoms they need to honor in strong copyleft, or that they're > trying to reserve the right of defeating these freedoms with > patent-wrangling. > > Or is there something else I've forgotten about? > > IIRC GPLv3 was mostly or completely about spelling out what were the > expected implications in GPLv2, but which some corporations, notably > TiVo, managed to circumvent and get away with it. Yes, a reaction to Tivoisation, iirc. -- Love is like the measles; we all have to go through it. -- Jerome K. Jerome
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 22:25 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <MJkIS.38924$0y32.2395@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #236234 |
On 10/30/2026 8:16 PM, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-10-29, rbowman wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 04:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> It seems to me, the move away from GNU software has to do with the >>> adoption of version 3 of the GPL. Something new in that version is being >>> seen by certain folks in Apple as a threat, where they were happy to >>> bundle and redistribute software that was licensed under GPLv2. >> >> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html >> >> I'm not a lawyer so I cannot figure out this steaming pile of legalese. > > In short, if a corporation is arguing that GPLv3 is a reason not to use > software or newer versions under that license, you probably should steer > clear of that corporation, that means either they don't intend to honor > the freedoms they need to honor in strong copyleft, or that they're > trying to reserve the right of defeating these freedoms with > patent-wrangling. > > Or is there something else I've forgotten about? > > IIRC GPLv3 was mostly or completely about spelling out what were the > expected implications in GPLv2, but which some corporations, notably > TiVo, managed to circumvent and get away with it. > I thought the GPL3 meant it was a reason for everyone to stay clear of GPL3 software. I mean, isn't that what happened in the real world, and more and more people started to use MIT-, BSD-based licenses instead? So in that sense, doesn't that mean the corporations won the TiVo fight? -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-09 19:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nlen00F4ma9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #236691 |
On Mon, 9 Nov 2026 22:25:48 +0800, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 10/30/2026 8:16 PM, Nuno Silva wrote: >> On 2026-10-29, rbowman wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 04:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> It seems to me, the move away from GNU software has to do with the >>>> adoption of version 3 of the GPL. Something new in that version is >>>> being seen by certain folks in Apple as a threat, where they were >>>> happy to bundle and redistribute software that was licensed under >>>> GPLv2. >>> >>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html >>> >>> I'm not a lawyer so I cannot figure out this steaming pile of >>> legalese. >> >> In short, if a corporation is arguing that GPLv3 is a reason not to use >> software or newer versions under that license, you probably should >> steer clear of that corporation, that means either they don't intend to >> honor the freedoms they need to honor in strong copyleft, or that >> they're trying to reserve the right of defeating these freedoms with >> patent-wrangling. >> >> Or is there something else I've forgotten about? >> >> IIRC GPLv3 was mostly or completely about spelling out what were the >> expected implications in GPLv2, but which some corporations, notably >> TiVo, managed to circumvent and get away with it. >> >> > I thought the GPL3 meant it was a reason for everyone to stay clear of > GPL3 software. I mean, isn't that what happened in the real world, and > more and more people started to use MIT-, BSD-based licenses instead? > > So in that sense, doesn't that mean the corporations won the TiVo fight? Or did FOSS win? Google developed Angular, and Meta developed React. Both are under the MIT license. Code-OSS was developed by Microsoft and also uses the MIT license. Chromium has inherited several licenses from its component parts. There are many more examples.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 18:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11c3586$l9fo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236210 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): > A brief little retrospective on the history of Emacs, on the occasion > of its 50th birthday > <https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/10/20/1145399/emacs-turns-50/>. > Before it was reimplemented in Lisp, the original version was written > in TECO, a language that I once heard characterized as bearing a > remarkable resemblance to transmission line noise. > > Interesting quote: > > Apple stopped shipping GNU Emacs in 2019, but the company still > has a program called mg (“Micro GNU Emacs”). Though it supports > most EMACS commands, it lacks an integrated programming language, > making it what some call an “ersatz EMACS.” I liked microEMACS as an alternative to PC vi, in the early 90's, in a DOS environment. > Why did Apple stop shipping GNU tools like Emacs and Bash? Why did it > give up on Objective C (implemented as part of the GNU Compiler > Collection) after so many years, and replace that with its own > homegrown Swift programming language? > > It seems to me, the move away from GNU software has to do with the > adoption of version 3 of the GPL. Something new in that version is > being seen by certain folks in Apple as a threat, where they were > happy to bundle and redistribute software that was licensed under > GPLv2. Could be true. Can you still install it in Mac? -- Almost nothing in Perl serves a single purpose. -- Larry Wall in <199712040054.QAA13811@wall.org>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-30 23:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18e3735ff69d9763$1$3105571$50d51a61@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #236244 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2026 18:20:53 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > I liked microEMACS as an alternative to PC vi, in the early 90's, > in a DOS environment. I started with it then. Then on OS/2. I still use it - on FreeBSD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bokma <contact@johnbokma.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-31 15:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <11c4tu7$162hf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236244 |
On 30/10/2026 23:20, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed): > >> A brief little retrospective on the history of Emacs, on the occasion >> of its 50th birthday >> <https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/10/20/1145399/emacs-turns-50/>. >> Before it was reimplemented in Lisp, the original version was written >> in TECO, a language that I once heard characterized as bearing a >> remarkable resemblance to transmission line noise. >> >> Interesting quote: >> >> Apple stopped shipping GNU Emacs in 2019, but the company still >> has a program called mg (“Micro GNU Emacs”). Though it supports >> most EMACS commands, it lacks an integrated programming language, >> making it what some call an “ersatz EMACS.” > > I liked microEMACS as an alternative to PC vi, in the early 90's, > in a DOS environment. > >> Why did Apple stop shipping GNU tools like Emacs and Bash? Why did it >> give up on Objective C (implemented as part of the GNU Compiler >> Collection) after so many years, and replace that with its own >> homegrown Swift programming language? >> >> It seems to me, the move away from GNU software has to do with the >> adoption of version 3 of the GPL. Something new in that version is >> being seen by certain folks in Apple as a threat, where they were >> happy to bundle and redistribute software that was licensed under >> GPLv2. > > Could be true. Can you still install it in Mac? Emacs? Sure. A lot of open source software can be installed via homebrew or mac ports. -- Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/ Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 17:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sm05wye0xbx.fsf@lakka.kapsi.fi> |
| In reply to | #236244 |
Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> writes: > I liked microEMACS as an alternative to PC vi, in the early 90's, > in a DOS environment. I have a vague memory I have too. Someone put together some scripts and tools around microemacs to edit code for HP48 calculators, transfer files back and forth to the calc, with appropriate character conversions too since the calcs had some math symbols not in ASCII or DOS code pages back then. Or possibly there was even some font support to display those symbols in MS-DOS. I really can't remember any more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11cdiv4$4vli$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236244 |
followups changed to: comp.emacs
In comp.emacs Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>
<snip>
>> Interesting quote:
>>
>> Apple stopped shipping GNU Emacs in 2019, but the company still
>> has a program called mg ("Micro GNU Emacs"). Though it supports
>> most EMACS commands, it lacks an integrated programming language,
>> making it what some call an "ersatz EMACS."
I suppose mg was taken from OpenBSD, it is a nice
microEMACS clone
>
> I liked microEMACS as an alternative to PC vi, in the early 90's,
> in a DOS environment.
Coherent OS took the "original" microEMACS and added logic
to compile a program and position the cursor to the error
line in the editor.
<snip>
--
csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-03 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11cdmqg$63m2$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236395 |
On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 21:16:21 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: > Coherent OS took the "original" microEMACS and added logic to > compile a program and position the cursor to the error line in the > editor. That’s the kind of thing that can be done with a few lines of Lisp by the user in *proper* Emacs. 🤭
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 07:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <27370.56122.100364.782688@parhasard.net> |
| In reply to | #236408 |
Ar an triú lá de mí na Samhna, scríobh Lawrence D’Oliveiro: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 21:16:21 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote: > > > Coherent OS took the "original" microEMACS and added logic to > > compile a program and position the cursor to the error line in the > > editor. > > That’s the kind of thing that can be done with a few lines of Lisp by the > user in *proper* Emacs. 🤭 M-x compile RET , you don’t need to write any Lisp. The point of a minmal emacs is to be minimal. To their credit, I suppose, they haven’t expanded it to be able to read email. -- ‘As I sat looking up at the Guinness ad, I could never figure out / How your man stayed up on the surfboard after fourteen pints of stout’ (C. Moore)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-04 08:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11ceq4e$gc5p$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236444 |
On Wed, 04 Nov 2026 07:14:02 +0000, Aidan Kehoe wrote: > The point of a minmal emacs is to be minimal. To their credit, I > suppose, they haven’t expanded it to be able to read email. Again, that’s done with separate Lisp code, that you don’t even have to have installed if you don’t want to. Emacs is modular and extensible. That’s what makes it so powerful: not that it has every feature built-in, but it has the potential to have features added as the user wants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-11-06 01:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <11cjadt$24k5v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #236408 |
Followups trimmed to: comp.emacs
In comp.emacs Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2026 21:16:21 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:
>
>> Coherent OS took the "original" microEMACS and added logic to
>> compile a program and position the cursor to the error line in the
>> editor.
>
> That's the kind of thing that can be done with a few lines of Lisp
> by the user in *proper* Emacs.
It was impossible to compile GNU Emacs on the first version
of Coherent I went to. It was a 16 bit system at that time.
Their microEMACS clone was quite useable on that system.
--
csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web