Montgomery EMACS : when did it leave the Public Domain ?

17 views
Skip to first unread message

Scott Crenshaw

unread,
Dec 9, 1985, 2:15:52 PM12/9/85
to

What is the last 'legal' public
domain version of Montgomery EMACS ?

Thanks,

--
Scott Crenshaw {akgua,decvax}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp
SCI Systems , Inc. Research Triangle Park, NC

The views represented may or may not be those of my employer.

Ron Natalie <ron>

unread,
Dec 11, 1985, 12:55:38 PM12/11/85
to
>
> What is the last 'legal' public
> domain version of Montgomery EMACS ?
>
> Thanks,
According to ATT there never was a public domain copy. Only leaked
copies. This came about over a furor about Zimmerman's CCA EMACS.

It's amazing that ATT wants $900 for source to their EMACS when UniPress
only wants $995 for source to their far superior version of Gosling's.

An entirely reasonable replacement is JOVE. I believe this is not
in the public domain, but available to anyone with a UNIX license
(probably has some fragments of the UNIX regular expression code in it)

-Ron

Paul Rubin

unread,
Dec 12, 1985, 7:14:51 AM12/12/85
to
In article <5...@brl-sem.ARPA>, r...@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes:
> It's amazing that ATT wants $900 for source to their EMACS when UniPress
> only wants $995 for source to their far superior version of Gosling's.

Not to point out the obvious but source for GNU Emacs, superior to all
of the above, is FREE. (I notice Unipress has lowered their prices!)

> An entirely reasonable replacement is JOVE. I believe this is not
> in the public domain, but available to anyone with a UNIX license

Jove is copyrighted, but its copyright notice says that it can be copied
for noncommercial use. I remember some restriction about copying it for
microcomputers though. I think that the authors plan to market a PC version.

> (probably has some fragments of the UNIX regular expression code in it)

It might be possible to replace this code with the corresponding GNU
regular expression code (included with GNU Emacs). The latter is covered
by the GNU Emacs General Public License, which says that sources of
anything using it must be available for free to everyone.

Tony L. Hansen

unread,
Dec 12, 1985, 3:24:23 PM12/12/85
to
< What is the last 'legal' public domain version of Montgomery EMACS ?

Montgomery's Emacs never entered the public domain. It has always been
proprietary software of AT&T. Source licenses for Montgomery's Emacs are
available from the UNIX System Toolchest (dial 201-522-6900 and login as
guest).

Tony Hansen
ihnp4!pegasus!hansen

mg @ The Soup Kitchen

unread,
Dec 12, 1985, 9:14:18 PM12/12/85
to
In article <11...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, p...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Paul Rubin) writes:
>
> Not to point out the obvious but source for GNU Emacs, superior to all
> of the above, is FREE. (I notice Unipress has lowered their prices!)
>

What prices do you mean? The only price I know of that was lowered was for
PCDOS Emacs, for IBMPC and clones, which certainly can't compete with
Gnumacs.

mg

BEATTIE

unread,
Dec 13, 1985, 2:20:16 PM12/13/85
to
>
> It's amazing that ATT wants $900 for source to their EMACS when UniPress
> only wants $995 for source to their far superior version of Gosling's.

What are the differences between Gosling and Montgomery EMACS?
What is so superior about Gosling's EMACS?
Tom.
~!{ihnp4|hou2g|allegra|mhuxh}!hoqam!twb

P. D. Guthrie

unread,
Dec 13, 1985, 5:02:57 PM12/13/85
to

I don't know if you would call `too slow to run' `superior'? I have
tried to use Gosling EMACS and just plain found it sluggish. It also
has many more flow-control problems than Montgomery EMACS, and other
problems too. I have worked at two places where Gosling's emacs is
used, and both times I opted for another editor (vi and Montgomery
EMACS). Montgomery EMACS is simple to use, very expandable (as is
Goslings) and I believe a superior editing machine. Opposing comments
are encouraged. But give me TECO-EMACS any time!!! (I haven't seen GNU
yet though)

--
*******
1,1
< It's ten o'clock. Do *you* know where your C compiler is?
> My VAX can beat up your VAX!

Paul Guthrie
ihnp4!ihdev!pdg

Jon M. Allingham

unread,
Dec 16, 1985, 10:36:30 PM12/16/85
to

> ...

>What are the differences between Gosling and Montgomery EMACS?
>What is so superior about Gosling's EMACS?
>Tom.
>

Montgomery EMACS is a LOT faster than GNU Emacs and I hear it is
a faster than Gosling's EMACS. It is somewhat simpler (ie better in
my opinion) then GNU EMACS.

Jon Allingham, AT&T Bell Laboratories - OYOC at Duke University

Warren Burstein

unread,
Dec 17, 1985, 2:37:14 PM12/17/85
to
Paul Rubin:
> Ron Natalie:

> > It's amazing that ATT wants $900 for source to their EMACS when UniPress
> > only wants $995 for source to their far superior version of Gosling's.
>
> Not to point out the obvious but source for GNU Emacs, superior to all
> of the above, is FREE. (I notice Unipress has lowered their prices!)
I looked at a GNU source, it was in lisp. I don't have lisp. Is there
a C version? If so, how do I get it?

> > An entirely reasonable replacement is JOVE. I believe this is not
> > in the public domain, but available to anyone with a UNIX license
>
> Jove is copyrighted, but its copyright notice says that it can be copied
> for noncommercial use. I remember some restriction about copying it for
> microcomputers though. I think that the authors plan to market a PC version.
>
> > (probably has some fragments of the UNIX regular expression code in it)
>
> It might be possible to replace this code with the corresponding GNU
> regular expression code (included with GNU Emacs). The latter is covered
> by the GNU Emacs General Public License, which says that sources of
> anything using it must be available for free to everyone.

Well how did those who have Jove get it? How can I?

Thanks.
--

The Maxwell R. Mayhem Institute for Quandary Requiem and Maternal Sciamachy
Accept no substitutes.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages