Subject: Re: Sun to free Solaris.
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 11:00:51 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "g" == D V Henkel-Wallace <gumby3@zembu.com> writes:

    g> At 12:14 26-01-00 -0800, kmself@ix.netcom.com wrote:

    >> So is Apache an instance of project forking in part based on
    >> licensing terms?  I'd been looking for instances of this
    >> previously, and had come up only with the Qt project.  What
    >> were the NCSA webserver licensing terms like?

    g> And Emacs...

Hm?  Are you talking about Lucid?

That's not the way I read the history.  AFAIK all of Lucid Emacs was
always GPL.  The Lucid people have always been more catholic about
allowing non-GPL-related stuff (eg, XEmacs was considering a revision
of the remote file access syntax to allow ssh-based access methods,
but rms refused because of the licensing terms of ssh, and the
movement fizzled AFAIK), and maybe even non-GPL Emacs Lisp, into their
overall distribution.  But that split was over functionality and
project control (eg, the FSF assignment, although again AFAIK Lucid
always assigned their stuff though Sun did not) as far as I can tell
from participant accounts and flamewar archives.

Or maybe you're talking about Epoch?  Dunno there, but I assume they
were always GPL too, since they were a GNU Emacs derivative AFAIK.

Or are you talking about Unipress Emacs?

Or gosmacs?

Or what?

-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."