RMS says: "Use BSD, for goodness sake!"
Terry Lambert
tlambert2 at mindspring.com
Fri Jun 27 01:09:25 PDT 2003
Paul Robinson wrote:
> If we take the output of that, and also mix in the stuff in /usr/src/gnu
> then we get the list (and my rough, top of the head, first stab on whether
> they're needed and/or can be reimplemented) below of around 35 (there is
> some duplication) packages that would need to be re-implemented, replaced or
> removed for FBSD to be GPL free.
>
> as - could be replaced, maybe even re-implmented.
There's a different assembler, already in ports.
> awk - encourage people to port their code away from awk. Big.
Real awk is available.
> bc - an undergrad could re-implement based on man page
Or even a graduate... 8-).
> binutils - collection of some 20 smallish apps, all manageable
These are all tied to the compilers. Most of them are only
necessary because of the compiler.
> bzip2 - could be reimplemented
Or ignored. The Unisys patent which caused it to be written has
expired (Welcome home, compress, we missed you!).
> cc - find an alternative compiler? From where?
TenDRA. Watcom. Intel. Lots of choices here.
> cpio - reimplement from man page, or replace/remove requirement for
pax.
> cvs - Don't need this do we? :-) look at another version control?
P4.
> dc - see bc
""
> dialog - need it now, kill it later, or re-implement based on man page
Kill it.
> diff - another undergrad project
> diff3 - see diff
Free versions available.
> gcc - hahahaha. yeah, right. see "cc".
> gdb - ditto.
See "cc" and "binutils".
> gperf - remove? teach people better DS&A? :-)
Not needed.
> grep - the issue here is the regexp, otherwise re-implement.
Recently discussed; replacement not imported for historical
performance reasons.
> groff - look at alternate doc formatting?
Real nroff available. Primary reason for groff is mandoc and
Postscript.
> gzip - nasty, but re-implementable. Or we move to a non-GNU zip format.
Compress, again.
> ipfilter - unclear on license... QNX_OCL.txt???
OpenBSD implementation; however, current ipfilter is not GPL.
> less - re-implementable quite quickly
Just use standard "more".
> ld - similar issues to cc and as - quite small though.
See CC.
> libgmp - alternatives available, with a performance hit
Shouldn't need to install this by default as part of base system.
> libio - another stdio lib from somewhere to replace it?
Uh... /usr/src/lib/libc/stdio?
> libpam - Linux PAM. Major effort to replace.
PAM has already been moved out from under by D.E.S.
> libreadline - big one to replace, IMHO
Free replacement exists; big problem is internationalization,
which is poorly handled anyway.
> man - could be re-implemented based on file format information known
Part of real nroff/troff.
> ncurses - big, high-impact, hard to replace
Old curses (Welcome back, real terminfo support!)
> patch - see diff
Larry Wall's "Artistic License"; not GPL.
> perl - it's not part of base anymore is it? If people want it, they grab it
Not part of base system.
> ptx - remove/replace/re-implement. Probably the former.
Make not part of base system.
> rcs - remove and make an optional package?
Not GPL.
> sdiff - see diff/patch
Free version already available.
> send-pr - remove! OK, re-implement, if you must. :-)
Never works for anyone with an email domain that doesn't match
their mail relay's domain anyway. Reenable the web page and call
it a day.
> sort - another undergrad project based on the man page
Trivial.
> tar - find alternative, or re-implement
pax.
> tcpdump - remove from base?
Remove from base.
> texinfo - find alternative, or remove from base
Use real Knuth TeX, instead.
> There's actually quite a few there that could be removed out to optional
> packages or ports. Some of it though - like the compiler - just has to stay
> unless an alternative is found. The ones that could be taken out straight
> away without much impact (I think!) are bc/dc, gperf, groff, ipfilter,
> libgmp (maybe?), libpam, perl, ptx, rcs and texinfo. That would bring us
> down to around two dozen GNU apps distributed with FBSD, and 10 of those
> could be re-written to be command line compatible but under BSD license
> quite quickly.
>
> Thoughts?
That code is under the GPL doesn't matter for tactical code.
All the code you've just named is tactical, not strategic;
for example, no one cares what compiled their code, or what
compiler runs on a platform, if they are running only binary
programs.
-- Terry
More information about the freebsd-chat
mailing list