From: pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:52:49 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Is anyone still actively developing RHIDE? Is the latest version Pavenis's modified 1.4.7.5?
Message-ID: <3A253461.23311.108C0A1@localhost>
In-reply-to: <200011291357.IAA24362@envy.delorie.com>
References: <901vga$93i$1 AT nntp9 DOT atl DOT mindspring DOT net> (marp AT 0 DOT 0 DOT 0 DOT 0)
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

There were much simplier reason why it wasn't done earlier:

latest updates of RHIDE contains code from GDB-5.0 (all debugging 
support) linked in. As result DJ could not accept it unless also DJGPP 
port of GDB-5.0 (with sources) are available from DJGPP distribution. 
Trying not to mention it (or relaying that it would not be noticed) and 
upload it earlier would not be nice. 

On 29 Nov 2000, at 8:57, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> > > Because it wouldn't be nice, that's why.
> > 
> > Next logical question: How is it "not nice"?
> 
> Because we all respect Andris, and we are thankful that he's done so
> much work on it.  If we were to do something with it against his
> wishes (even if legal), he might choose not to contribute any more,
> and we'll have annoyed a lot of djgpp users.  Legalities have nothing
> to do with it.
> 
> > Eli's post suggested to me that if someone were to do so, they would
> > somehow be violating the GPL license (which RHIDE uses for it's
> > terms) or violating some rule for distributing files on simtel.
> 
> No, just violating our moral code.
> 
> > I'll tell you why I think there's nothing "not nice" about it.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> > Andris received the RHIDE distribution, modified it,
> 
> With Robert's permission and approval.

We'll last Robert's version was a long time ago. GPL permits 
distributing modified versions (of course only together with sources)
A long time ago I asked this to Robert before first time I released 
patched version but didn't get an answer. That time most my patches
wen't into next Robert's beta version. Anyway last Robert's beta
version is now more than 2 years old. Later I upgraded RHIDE to
newer versions of port of TVision and newer version of SetEdit.
Of course it would be nice to give my changes back to Robert
but I don't have any contact with him.

However what I have done is not only modified version based on 
rhide-1.4.7. There is one more (for X11 and console under Linux).
Unfortunatelly it was not so easy to merge these modification.
Parhaps it will happen only when X11 support will be added to
TVision and SETEDIT (X11 version of RHIDE used old versions of
both)

> 
> > My point is this. Asking him if it's okay would be asking him a question
> > that he has, in effect, already answered.
> 
> No, asking him if it's *legal* would be redundant.  Being polite and
> respectful is *never* redundant.
> 
> > As for the rules of simtel, I don't know what they are,
> 
> There's nothing in the simtel rules about this.  All they require is
> legal redistribution rights and virus protection.  Oh, and 8+3
> filenames ;)

Perhaps if I would stop any visible activity with RHIDE for some 
reasonable time somebody could take this over even without asking

Andris