Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Congratulations Sanchez and Thank You for GT.M

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Jim Self

unread,
May 18, 2001, 1:23:01 PM5/18/01
to
In case you didn't notice, GT.M for Linux x86 is now Open Source or Free
Software available under the GNU Public Licence. I was expecting to see
an announcement to this newsgroup from Bhaskar by now, but I am
extremely pleased to be one of the first to publicly say Thank you,
Sanchez for this great gift to the MUMPS community.


John Murray

unread,
May 19, 2001, 12:51:35 PM5/19/01
to
I'll gladly second Jim's vote of thanks and add a little more information.

Bhaskar has been in Germany at the MUG-D annual meeting, from where I have
just returned. There was lots of interest in GT.M at that meeting. The theme
of the meeting was "Open Source", and Terry Wiechmann was also showing
EsiObjects, which is promised to become Open Source in the near future.
EsiObjects is expected on GT.M shortly, at which point there'll be an
object-based Open Source route forward for Msters.

URLs to follow:

http://www.sanchez-gtm.com
http://www.esitechnology.com

John Murray

"Jim Self" <jas...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote in message
news:3B055A75...@dcn.davis.ca.us...

chuck5566

unread,
May 19, 2001, 5:43:17 PM5/19/01
to
GT.M and EsiObjects - could be a killer combo!


John Murray <john@murray.-SPAMtele2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tgd8vtc...@corp.supernews.co.uk...

Kevin O'Kane

unread,
May 19, 2001, 8:36:00 PM5/19/01
to
Perhaps I missed something here. Open Source usually means
the source is available. Since posting nearly 2 years ago, however,
Sanchez has promised, but never released source code.

The SourceForge posting for GT.M says it is released under the GPL
license but none of the usual conditions of the GPL license have
been fulfilled. These include source code availability and
the right of users to freely modify and redistribute the source code
to any user on any target machine without fee or royalty.

Ray Newman

unread,
May 19, 2001, 9:16:58 PM5/19/01
to
Kevin O'Kane wrote:
>
> Perhaps I missed something here. Open Source usually means
> the source is available. Since posting nearly 2 years ago, however,
> Sanchez has promised, but never released source code.
>
> The SourceForge posting for GT.M says it is released under the GPL
> license but none of the usual conditions of the GPL license have
> been fulfilled. These include source code availability and
> the right of users to freely modify and redistribute the source code
> to any user on any target machine without fee or royalty.

The sources are there al right - all you need (as specified on source forge)
is:
%cvs -d:pserver:anon...@cvs.sanchez-gtm.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/sanchez-gtm
login
%cvs -z3
-d:pserver:anon...@cvs.sanchez-gtm.sourceforge.net:/cvsroot/sanchez-gtm co
gtm

Ray Newman

John Carter

unread,
May 19, 2001, 11:11:48 PM5/19/01
to
Absolutely!
I just loaded my Turbo Linux Box.
Now I can try GT.M!

"chuck5566" <chuc...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tgdq63c...@corp.supernews.com...

Jim Self

unread,
May 20, 2001, 1:29:18 AM5/20/01
to
Thanks for pointing that out Ray. I am rather interested to hear what you and
Kevin have to say about it after you have time to review the code.

For those of you not familiar with cvs, it is a version control tool included in
FreeBSD and in most, if not all, Linux distributions that is commonly used to
coordinate development on Open Source projects. The instructions that Ray gave
are actually two command lines but they probably appear to be more than that.
They are broken into five lines on my newsreader

Kevin O'Kane

unread,
May 20, 2001, 10:03:28 PM5/20/01
to
I stand corrected - the source code is there. I was looking at the
FTP files. The source modules I looked at, however, all have
non-GPL copyright notices attached although the higher level directory
does contain the COPYING file containing the GPL. I'm not
sure where this leaves the license issue. Does the COPYING
file GPL cover all the files in the sub directories, regardless
of the notice in each file or do the individual copyright notices
supercede the GLP license?

Jim Self

unread,
May 21, 2001, 12:40:59 AM5/21/01
to
Kevin O'Kane wrote:

> I stand corrected - the source code is there. I was looking at the
> FTP files. The source modules I looked at, however, all have
> non-GPL copyright notices attached although the higher level directory
> does contain the COPYING file containing the GPL. I'm not
> sure where this leaves the license issue. Does the COPYING
> file GPL cover all the files in the sub directories, regardless
> of the notice in each file or do the individual copyright notices
> supercede the GLP license?

As I read it the notice on the individual files simply says that it is covered
by some license that you should know about. That license is then spelled out at
the top directory in the GPL copying file. I would prefer to see specific
mention of GPL in the individual files, but I think the effect and intent is
the same in that you and I receive them under GPL.

Ray Newman

unread,
May 21, 2001, 6:56:23 AM5/21/01
to
Jim Self wrote:
>
> Kevin O'Kane wrote:
>
> > I stand corrected - the source code is there. I was looking at the
> > FTP files. The source modules I looked at, however, all have
> > non-GPL copyright notices attached although the higher level directory
> > does contain the COPYING file containing the GPL. I'm not
> > sure where this leaves the license issue. Does the COPYING
> > file GPL cover all the files in the sub directories, regardless
> > of the notice in each file or do the individual copyright notices
> > supercede the GLP license?
>
> As I read it the notice on the individual files simply says that it is covered
> by some license that you should know about. That license is then spelled out at
> the top directory in the GPL copying file. I would prefer to see specific
> mention of GPL in the individual files, but I think the effect and intent is
> the same in that you and I receive them under GPL.

Basically, there are too many files to have to go through all of them
re-specifying the licence for each audience.

I am a tad supprised at the number of files for a simple MUMPS implementation.


Ray Newman

K.S. Bhaskar

unread,
May 23, 2001, 11:04:04 AM5/23/01
to
Jim --

Thank you for posting the news about GT.M sources.

All --

We released the GT.M sources for x86 GNU/Linux under GPL at the M User Group
Deutschland Jahrestagung 2001 in Pliezhausen last week. The sources were
also
moved to Source Forge, but since I had modem problems in Europe I was unable
to post to comp.lang.mumps.

The GT.M CD on which we released sources also contained Winfried Bantel's
CGI
interface (which was used for the online registration for the MUG-D
meeting),
Aida (provided by Frans Witte), an SQL engine with a Java UI based on the
Swing classes with ODBC/JDBC access, and Visual GT.M (provided by Paulo
Rogério Machado), a set of Borland Delphi custom controls and GT.M code to
serve the custom controls. If you would like a copy of the CD, please send
me
e-mail. Thank you very much to Winfried, Frans and Paolo.

Also, it appears that there may be some confusion about GT.M licensing. The
sources on the CD and at Source Forge are released under the GPL. However,
since the GPL is a non-exclusive license, as are all of our licenses, as the
owner of the copyright and intellectual property embodied in GT.M, Sanchez
can
and does license the same software and the same source code to different
entities under different licenses. Thus, the header in the source code
refers
to the fact that it has been made available under a license, and that the
reader needs to be familiar with the terms of the license under which the
source code has been made available to him/her.

-- Bhaskar
k dot bhaskar at sanchez dot com

>===== Original Message From Jim Self <jas...@dcn.davis.ca.us> =====

K.S. Bhaskar

unread,
May 23, 2001, 11:36:36 AM5/23/01
to
CVS is more than that. It is probably the de facto standard for source code
control in the UNIX world, not just for open source projects. If the VistA
code were, for example, to be put on Source Forge, under CVS control, I
think
the world of healthcare computing would benefit...

-- Bhaskar

>===== Original Message From Jim Self <jas...@dcn.davis.ca.us> =====

>Thanks for pointing that out Ray. I am rather interested to hear what you and
>Kevin have to say about it after you have time to review the code.
>
>For those of you not familiar with cvs, it is a version control tool
included in
>FreeBSD and in most, if not all, Linux distributions that is commonly used to
>coordinate development on Open Source projects. The instructions that Ray
gave
>are actually two command lines but they probably appear to be more than that.
>They are broken into five lines on my newsreader

<...snip...>

K.S. Bhaskar

unread,
May 23, 2001, 12:02:32 PM5/23/01
to
Emile is right that GT.M is not a simple MUMPS implementation. However, it
is
not the TP that causes the number of files to increase. Fundamentally
(apart
from correctness and quality, of course) the goal of GT.M is to be both fast
and portable. Since peformance and portability are often factors that are
often traded off, one for the other, this raises some interesting issues,
and
the price GT.M pays is in complexity.

GT.M consists of (since as a manager I am incapable of arithmetic that
requires more than 2 significant digits, these numbers are approximate)
1,600
source code modules, most of which (1,000, give or take) are portable across
all platforms, 500 OS type modules have a UNIX flavor and a VMS flavor,
between 100 and 200 have a hardware architecture specific flavor (e.g.,
Alpha/AXP, x86) and a small number (I think 7 in the case of x86 GNU/Linux)
are dependent on both the hardware architecture and the variant of the OS
type. For a module foo.x, ideally we want the most universal version of
foo.x
for maintainability, but we may need to replace it with a more specific
version for performance or portability. In order to do this at a very fine
grain level, GT.M has a large number of source code files.

Playing with GT.M internals is not a casual exercise. It takes our
engineers
weeks to months to get comfortble with internals. Its pieces fit together
like one of those super challenging jigsaw puzzles, but with a twist --
imagine a super challenging jigsaw puzzzle where there are multiple
solutions,
each of which requires that some pieces be replaced by other pieces... GT.M
as released on x86 GNU/Linux represents a package with the pieces needed for
one solution released as open source. We have other solutions which are not
free software and for which all pieces are not released as open source, but
for which some modules are shared with the version on x86 GNU/Linux.

-- Bhaskar

>===== Original Message From em...@cactus.intern.iris-advies.com () =====
>On Mon, 21 May 2001 20:56:23 +1000, Ray Newman <ray...@unixworks.com.au>
wrote:


>
>>I am a tad supprised at the number of files for a simple MUMPS
implementation.
>

>The main reason for this is probably that this is _not_ a simple MUMPS
>implementation. Check out the docs, the stuff about their transaction
>model especially impressed me.
>
>Emile

Jim Self

unread,
May 23, 2001, 2:45:27 PM5/23/01
to
Bhaskar,
Please send me a copy of the cd, although if the contents are available online
just the URL would be easier.

I hope you had a good trip.
I am also interested to hear any reports from the MUG meeting in Germany,
especially regarding the reception of GT.M, the GT.M cd, and the applications
contained on it.

0 new messages