Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cositex.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!cositex!san
From: san@cositex.UUCP (Steve Sanderson)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.apple
Subject: Re: Is there a micro vi?
Message-ID: <193@cositex.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Jun-85 17:36:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: cositex.193
Posted: Wed Jun 19 17:36:09 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 01:18:59 EDT
References: <1745@sunybcs.UUCP> <178@utastro.UUCP> <1561@orca.UUCP> <234@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: COSI Texas,  Austin, Texas
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.micro:10840 net.micro.apple:1992

> > > You might consider JOVE, a public domain version of the EMACS editor...
> > Jove has been touted lately as a public domain editor.  This is not so.
> > ...
> Here is the header message, verbatim, from re.c in the Jove editor source
> distribution:
  ...
>    Much of this code was taken from /usr/src/cmd/ed.c.  It has been ...
  ...
> I solicit opinion from the net.  Is it piracy or not?
> Ed Nather

I'm afraid that I would (in the strictest sense) call this software
piracy.  Considering the case of vi, I was told that one of the main
reasons, if not the main reason, that vi is not in the public domain
is because of the pattern matching (and other) code from the original
ed source code.  Considering the differences between ed and vi, and the
modifications necessary to achieve the differences, I think that ``major
modifications'' to source code does not constitute a completely new 
entity.  After all, even the author admits to jove_re.c being descended
from ed source code!

	Steve Sanderson
-- 
Steve Sanderson, COSI Texas
		 4412 Spicewood Springs, Suite 801 Austin, Texas 78759
UUCP:	{ihnp4, seismo, ctvax}!ut-sally!cositex!san, san@cositex.UUCP
AT&T:	(512) 345-2780