home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.19950929-19951130
/
000322_news@columbia.edu_Sun Nov 5 22:42:00 1995.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1995-12-25
|
4KB
Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu with SMTP id AA19902
(5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for <kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu>); Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:04:17 -0500
Received: by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu id AA20185
(5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for kermit.misc@watsun); Sun, 5 Nov 1995 19:04:15 -0500
Path: news.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.uoregon.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!panix!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!not-for-mail
From: les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: how to get DOS kermit c source code?
Date: 5 Nov 1995 16:42:00 -0600
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organi[sz]ation
Lines: 63
Message-Id: <47jejo$lkh@Mercury.mcs.com>
References: <45pk9f$so3@info.bta.net.cn> <46jurh$c8l@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> <47etn2$eq7@Mars.mcs.com> <47g716$s75@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: mercury.mcs.com
Apparently-To: kermit.misc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu
In article <47g716$s75@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>,
Frank da Cruz <fdc@watsun.cc.columbia.edu> wrote:
>Good points! But I still don't understand your insistence that the
>software (aside from Kermit 95) is not freely available. See my other
>posting of today.
Availability isn't the only issue. If kermit isn't *already* at the
other end you have a problem. What is your estimate of this being
the case the first time someone wants to communicate?
>: But BSDI, freeBSD and netBSD seem to be going strong.
>:
>And each off in its own direction. Look at how each of these needs
>separate code in Kermit to support. Wouldn't it be nice if the world
>were more consistent. There is something to be said for centralized
>coordination and management, and that's what we aim to provide.
That would be pretty much irrelevant if you allowed those distributions
to include a working kermit binary. Someone else would do it. Especially
if you would move the code that deals with tty lines into a separate
module so it could simply be replaced for each major variation instead
of being a nightmare of #ifdef's.
>Our code is freely distributed too. The question is how can it be
>REdistributed? The reasonable restrictions we have placed on
>commercial redistribution arose out of necessity to preserve the
>Kermit Project, because without them we were being devoured by
>profiteers. Perhaps it is a matter of opinion whether we have
>chosen the right way, but in the final analysis we have to make
>the decision.
It is freely distributed to people who have ftp access. Why do
those people need kermit other than for terminal emulation? The
people who need it for file transfers don't have it and can get
other products easier. If that is the way you wanted things, then
I guess you made the right decision, but it sure doesn't follow the
spirit of the old kermit documents.
>: Besides, at the moment the most popular communications platform
>: is probably Windows 3.x running a dial-up or network winsock
>: which seems to be a gaping hole in the kermit product line.
>:
>Granted. At least two projects were started to fill this gap, but
>were not completed. That's one of the pitfalls of free software
>-- with very few exceptions, you can't count on people completing
>projects when you aren't paying them anything (for an even more
>graphic illustration of this point, look at the history of Mac
>Kermit). Would anybody like to volunteer to take on the Windows
>3.1 Winsock / MS-DOS Kermit project? Five or ten years ago there
>would have been plenty of takers.
I suspect that there would still be takers if the resulting product
could be used by the person/company that did the port. Free software
generally comes from someone who needs something for their own work
and realizes that it doesn't cost anything to let others use it.
With kermit, you can't redistribute the modified product even for
your own benifit so it is not at all surprising that no one is
interested in doing it. You probably won't find many people contributing
code to commercial vendors so they can sell it back to them either.
Les Mikesell
les@mcs.com