🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec11.195344.10218@reed.edu> bowman@reed.edu (BoBoRamDos) writes:
>As much as I love the Mac, the command line interface with piping has some
>*really nice* things about it.  Grepping, scripting, complete customization
>of the environment, all these things make MPW invaluable to me.  It's so
>easy, for instance, to search through MacApp for examples of how to do various
>things; it's so easy to search through your source looking for *anything*.
>Then you can write a script to intelligently change what needs to be changed.
>Not to mention Projector.

Can someone tell me how similar MPW is to the C-shell in Unix? I've been an
avid USER of the Mac fan since the early days ('84), but to this day I have 
never PROGRAMMED on the Mac. I'm too hooked on vi, make, history (!), grep, 
awk, pipes, shell scripts, and other features of Unix on my SparcStation.

Also, isn't it true that MPW is the only platform on which you can program
in C++? If not, what other product is there? (A related question -- does
anyone know if MPW C++ supports templates?)

Thanks,
  - Tom A. (Mac programmer wannabe)
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Internet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------

In article <1992Dec11.155851.14862@walter.cray.com> toma@baritone (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.195344.10218@reed.edu> bowman@reed.edu (BoBoRamDos) writes:
>Can someone tell me how similar MPW is to the C-shell in Unix? I've been an
>avid USER of the Mac fan since the early days ('84), but to this day I have 
>never PROGRAMMED on the Mac. I'm too hooked on vi, make, history (!), grep, 
>awk, pipes, shell scripts, and other features of Unix on my SparcStation.
>
>Also, isn't it true that MPW is the only platform on which you can program
>in C++? If not, what other product is there? (A related question -- does
>anyone know if MPW C++ supports templates?)

Anyone who likes working with UNIX will find moving to MPW very pleasant. In
fact, there are oodles of aliases already in place to MPW commands that map
to their UNIX counterparts. The script language is very powerful (though a
bit strange where pattern matchin is concerend - at least I always have to
look things up, which is not hard) and has been pointed out before MPW is
still really the only way to go if you want to have good control other
source-code versioning. MPW is not nearly as fast as THINK C, but then THINK
C lacks most of the power, too. As to C++ , yes at the moment MPW is the
only way to get it (Apple uses AT&T's cfront). THINK C has a C++ subset, but
it is only a subset. MPW is also the only way to go if you want to work with
MacApp which is far and away much larger than TCL (THINK C's object class
library) though the latter is good, too. Also, a port of gcc 2.x is in the
works (not through GNU since R. Stallman doesn't like the Mac...) and that'll
run under MPW.

Hope this helps.

  ** Ken **

In <1992Dec11.155851.14862@walter.cray.com> toma@baritone (Thomas Arneberg) writes:

>Can someone tell me how similar MPW is to the C-shell in Unix? I've been an

Not very.

>never PROGRAMMED on the Mac. I'm too hooked on vi, make, history (!), grep, 
>awk, pipes, shell scripts, and other features of Unix on my SparcStation.

Vi: not a chance unless you get an external editor.
Make: included
History: Everything you do, is saved in a window (worksheet) both input
         and output, fully editable. You can "execute" any line or
         selection.
Grep: Compiled GNU grep & egrep without problems, also "Find" does
      another similar kind of RE.
awk: Has been ported, as has perl.
pipes: Pseudo-pipes, using files as intermediaries I think. Can only
       go one way (and there+s no "pipe" system call)
Shell scripts: MPW scripts out the kazoo. MPW shell is not exactly like
               csh or sh, but at least as powerful.

What's on the horizon is AppleEvents for having scripts control
a bunch of stuff; will be way cool!

>Also, isn't it true that MPW is the only platform on which you can program
>in C++? If not, what other product is there? (A related question -- does
>anyone know if MPW C++ supports templates?)

Yes and no. Think C will probably be Think C++ next year. MPW C++ is
CFront 2.1, which has no templates. Use StreamEdit, the Mac variant
of sed :-)

Cheers,

							/ h+

-- 
 -- Jon W{tte, h+@nada.kth.se, Mac Hacker Deluxe --

  "On a clear disc, you can seek forever."

In article <1992Dec11.232957.24528@kth.se>, d88-jwa@hemul.nada.kth.se (Jon Wtte) writes:
>
> What's on the horizon is AppleEvents for having scripts control
> a bunch of stuff; will be way cool!

It isn't on the horizon, it's here. ToolServer has reached official release,
though I don't know how it'll be made available to non-ETO subscribers.
MPW 3.3 is still in alpha, and that's only available to ETO subscribers.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro                       fone: +64-7-856-2889
Computer Services Dept                     fax: +64-7-838-4066
University of Waikato            electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz
Hamilton, New Zealand    37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+13:00

toma@baritone (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.195344.10218@reed.edu> bowman@reed.edu (BoBoRamDos) writes:
>Can someone tell me how similar MPW is to the C-shell in Unix? I've been an
>avid USER of the Mac fan since the early days ('84), but to this day I have 
>never PROGRAMMED on the Mac. I'm too hooked on vi, make, history (!), grep, 
>awk, pipes, shell scripts, and other features of Unix on my SparcStation.

     MPW is modelled on the UNIX Programmer's Workbench, circa 1978, and
offers roughly the same level of functionality.  It was state of the art
when Apple picked it as a model, even though it's been bypassed by
more modern environments.  It predates the C shell, although some
pattern-matching has been bolted on.


					John Nagle

In article <1gb6n9INNpmk@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, krk@oit.itd.umich.edu (Kenneth Knight) writes:
>.... Also, a port of gcc 2.x is in the works (not through GNU since 
> R. Stallman doesn't like the Mac...) and that'll run under MPW.
A small point but I don't think Stallman has anything against Macs. 
Its Apple he doesn't like (and anyone else who throws copyright suits 
around)... Since Apple are thus hindering development of quality software he
doesn't believe they should be able to use "his" (ie GNU) software. I'm not
sure I agree with him but I do respect his views and ponder the morality of
porting GNU stuff to Apple platforms when the authors would rather it wasn't
done... Shouldn't the "porter" just go out and write his own?

Now I duck and wait for the FLAME! ;-)
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A.J. Gauld				EMail: 	  agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk
BT, Glasgow Engineering Centre,         Phone:    +44 41 553 2140
229 George Street, Glasgow, UK          PostCode: G1 1BZ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk (Alan Gauld) writes:
>A small point but I don't think Stallman has anything against Macs. 
>Its Apple he doesn't like (and anyone else who throws copyright suits 
>around)... Since Apple are thus hindering development of quality software he

Everyone in the computer industry does the lawsuit thing, Stallman doesn't
like Apple becasue the Mac is a closed system.
-Terry

tthiel@cs.uiuc.edu (Terry Thiel) writes:

>agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk (Alan Gauld) writes:
>>A small point but I don't think Stallman has anything against Macs. 
>>Its Apple he doesn't like (and anyone else who throws copyright suits 
>>around)... Since Apple are thus hindering development of quality software he

After a number of people complained that the FSF is being hypocritical becuase
a large number of companies, not just Apple, follow litigenous practictices,
a FSF member admitted that they realize that and chose Apple mainly as an
example, that it would not be possible for them to boycott *everyone* who
did it. So I don't think any Maccer should feel guilty about using GNU
software.

(I may mean GNU instead of FSF; it's hard to tell them apart)

Mark L
-- 
/* Mark Lanett */

In article <1992Dec16.132756.20642@gssec.bt.co.uk>, agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk
(Alan Gauld) wrote:
> In article <1gb6n9INNpmk@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>, krk@oit.itd.umich.edu (Kenneth Knight) writes:
> >.... Also, a port of gcc 2.x is in the works (not through GNU since 
> > R. Stallman doesn't like the Mac...) and that'll run under MPW.
> A small point but I don't think Stallman has anything against Macs. 
> Its Apple he doesn't like (and anyone else who throws copyright suits 
> around)... Since Apple are thus hindering development of quality software he
> doesn't believe they should be able to use "his" (ie GNU) software. I'm not
> sure I agree with him but I do respect his views and ponder the morality of
> porting GNU stuff to Apple platforms when the authors would rather it wasn't
> done... Shouldn't the "porter" just go out and write his own?
> 
> Now I duck and wait for the FLAME! ;-)
> -- 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> A.J. Gauld				EMail: 	  agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk
> BT, Glasgow Engineering Centre,         Phone:    +44 41 553 2140
> 229 George Street, Glasgow, UK          PostCode: G1 1BZ
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

In article <1992Dec16.062319.16732@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>
>      MPW is modelled on the UNIX Programmer's Workbench, circa 1978, and
> offers roughly the same level of functionality.

Really?? I didn't know UNIX had multi-window text editing and an integrated
shell/editor in 1978!!!

Lawrence D'Oliveiro                       fone: +64-7-856-2889
Computer Services Dept                     fax: +64-7-838-4066
University of Waikato            electric mail: ldo@waikato.ac.nz
Hamilton, New Zealand    37^ 47' 26" S, 175^ 19' 7" E, GMT+13:00

In article <1992Dec17.163231.12864@waikato.ac.nz>, ldo@waikato.ac.nz
(Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec16.062319.16732@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
> >      MPW is modelled on the UNIX Programmer's Workbench, circa 1978, and
> > offers roughly the same level of functionality.
> 
> Really?? I didn't know UNIX had multi-window text editing and an integrated
> shell/editor in 1978!!!

Neither did UNIX have a Smalltalk style 'window contents are files'
mapping. Most of the UNIX editors still don't today don't have it
(with the exception of GNU style lisp editors and CodeCenter environments).

I think the core issue is that 'let the thousand flowers bloom" (no,
I'm not a Maoist). It merely means that there are 1 million programmers
out there, and they all have different opinions about what the perfect
dev. environment should look like. Some like graphical interfaces,
others (like me) enjoy Lisp/Smalltalk style interaction environments.
Others
like MPW/UNIX style editing environments. Instead of limiting the
programmer
experience, I do feel that various companies should provide alternate
solutions, and the programmer could select one that he/she likes. It's 
like shopping for a car, somebody likes Volvos, others like French
cars, and I hate most cars :-) *)


Kent
*) Ever tried to use your bike in California?
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

In <1992Dec16.132756.20642@gssec.bt.co.uk> agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk (Alan Gauld) writes:

>A small point but I don't think Stallman has anything against Macs. 
>Its Apple he doesn't like (and anyone else who throws copyright suits 
>around)... Since Apple are thus hindering development of quality software he
>doesn't believe they should be able to use "his" (ie GNU) software. I'm not
>sure I agree with him but I do respect his views and ponder the morality of
>porting GNU stuff to Apple platforms when the authors would rather it wasn't
>done... Shouldn't the "porter" just go out and write his own?

The "Free" in Free Software Foundation means that people have the
right to do whatever they want with the source code as long as any
changes they make are made available under the same terms.  Stallman
et. al. can not impose any restrictions without undermining their
entire philosophy; all they can do is ask, and anyone is perfectly
free to say "Bbbtthhhh".

-- 
Michael A Stoodt  [MaS]      |        mumble mumble disclaimer mumble...
stoodt@cis.umassd.edu        | "Will the last person to leave the planet
Comp&InfoSci, UMassDartmouth |  please turn off the sun?" - Mike Resnick

In article <1992Dec16.132756.20642@gssec.bt.co.uk>, agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk
(Alan Gauld) wrote:
> 
> around)... Since Apple are thus hindering development of quality software he
> doesn't believe they should be able to use "his" (ie GNU) software. I'm not

We're both putting words into his mouth, but I think he objects to
supporting Apple hardware and he also encourages people not to purchase
Apple products, not to work for Apple, etc.  

> sure I agree with him but I do respect his views and ponder the morality of
> porting GNU stuff to Apple platforms when the authors would rather it wasn't
> done... Shouldn't the "porter" just go out and write his own?

Perhaps that's true.  But there's a conflict in that his approach is that
the software should be unencumbered so that anyone can do anything s/he
wants with it and that all changes should be equally unencumbered.  So by
that philosophy, it's perfectly reasonable for people to port it to the
Mac.

Even if there wasn't a boycott against Apple the GNU software (especially
GCC) wouldn't be ported to the Mac OS as a matter of course simply because
their focus is Unix-like machines and it's relatively hard to port some of
the software to the Mac.

Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com

In <lsr-181292122440@lsr.taligent.com> lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.132756.20642@gssec.bt.co.uk>, agauld@gssec.bt.co.uk
>(Alan Gauld) wrote:
>> 
>> around)... Since Apple are thus hindering development of quality software he
>> doesn't believe they should be able to use "his" (ie GNU) software. I'm not

>We're both putting words into his mouth, but I think he objects to
>supporting Apple hardware and he also encourages people not to purchase
>Apple products, not to work for Apple, etc.  

>> sure I agree with him but I do respect his views and ponder the morality of
>> porting GNU stuff to Apple platforms when the authors would rather it wasn't
>> done... Shouldn't the "porter" just go out and write his own?

>Perhaps that's true.  But there's a conflict in that his approach is that
>the software should be unencumbered so that anyone can do anything s/he
>wants with it and that all changes should be equally unencumbered.  So by
>that philosophy, it's perfectly reasonable for people to port it to the
>Mac.

>Even if there wasn't a boycott against Apple the GNU software (especially
>GCC) wouldn't be ported to the Mac OS as a matter of course simply because
>their focus is Unix-like machines and it's relatively hard to port some of
>the software to the Mac.

>Larry Rosenstein
>Taligent, Inc.

>lsr@taligent.com

Rubbish. The GCC compiler is available for the IBM PC, et al. And this version 
in particular is _excellent_ e.g. it supports 128Mbytes of virtual memory.

--

Tariq Hamid	                 	Internet:  tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
 Department of Computer Science  	JANET:     tariqh@uk.ac.qmw.dcs
  Queen Mary & Westfield College  
   Mile End Road                   	  Telephone:  +44 71-975 5245
    LONDON, E1 4NS, UK             	  Fax:        +44 81-980 6533

In article <1992Dec19.000239.11451@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
(Tariq Hamid) wrote:
> 
> In <lsr-181292122440@lsr.taligent.com> lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein) writes:
> 
> >Even if there wasn't a boycott against Apple the GNU software (especially
> >GCC) wouldn't be ported to the Mac OS as a matter of course simply because
> >their focus is Unix-like machines and it's relatively hard to port some of
> >the software to the Mac.
> 
> 
> Rubbish. The GCC compiler is available for the IBM PC, et al. And this version 
> in particular is _excellent_ e.g. it supports 128Mbytes of virtual memory.
> 

What's rubbish?  That the GNU focus is on UN*X machines, or that its hard
to port UN*X like software to the Mac?

And the 128Mbytes support for the PC requires a DOS extender.  I've lost
track... Did Microsoft ever release a 32bit DOS extender?  I remember that
when the first public domain extenders & GCC appeared for PCs, they didn't
have support for graphics, mouse, etc.  That was two years ago... Has it
changed at all?

So using a rough comparison, the PC is more like UN*X in that it has a
command line interface and so forth.  The Mac environment, with pull down
menus and no command line interface, is less like UN*X than the PC is.

But there is a solution: Porting a UN*X like tool to the Mac is easy if you
do it within the MPW environment.  I've ported a variety of my MSDOS & UN*X
tools to MPW.

Why?  MPW has UN*X like features (scripting, make, projector, custom tools,
limited piping, etc.)  Tools can have command line options and so forth. 
Custom tools (cross compilers & assemblers), scripts, and projector are the
reasons why I don't use Think C.  I build a software pack

You can find earlier versions of GCC ported to the MPW environment.  I
can't remember, don't they use the MPW linker, assembler, and libraries?

Unfortunately the GNU "copyleft" for GCC (and their varients of lex &
yacc), prevent me from using those tools for commercial work.  Not that I
think FSF cares much about an Apple employee not using a GNU tool, but I
suggest you read the GNU documents carefully before using their tools to
produce a commercial product.


Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
keithley@apple.com
"I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"

In article <1992Dec19.000239.11451@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, tariqh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
(Tariq Hamid) wrote:
> 
> In <lsr-181292122440@lsr.taligent.com> lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein) writes:

> >Even if there wasn't a boycott against Apple the GNU software (especially
> >GCC) wouldn't be ported to the Mac OS as a matter of course simply because
> >their focus is Unix-like machines and it's relatively hard to port some of
> >the software to the Mac.

> Rubbish. The GCC compiler is available for the IBM PC, et al. And this version 
> in particular is _excellent_ e.g. it supports 128Mbytes of virtual memory.

I don't think the FSF does the ports to the IBM PC.  It's done by someone
else.  The same is true of the Mac.  You can get a version of GCC for MPW
and people are working on porting the latest version.  

My point was that even if the FSF wasn't boycotting Apple, they would not
be doing ports to the Mac.  The FSF doesn't actively support all platforms;
some are only "passively supported".
 
Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com

In article <keithley-181292171536@kip2-37.apple.com>, keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:
> 
> Unfortunately the GNU "copyleft" for GCC (and their varients of lex &
> yacc), prevent me from using those tools for commercial work.

The GNU copyleft is much discussed and I don't wish to revive the debate here,
but the above might lead some to believe that the commercial use of
copylefted software will undermind thier property rights.

Several companies have include GNU stuff which thier products
and I'm not aware that any have suffered as a result.

So, I suspect that it's Apple's conservative legal policy and not the copyleft
that prevents Craig from using GCC.

-Paul O'Keefe

In article <lsr-181292192918@lsr.taligent.com>, lsr@taligent.com (Larry
Rosenstein) wrote:
> My point was that even if the FSF wasn't boycotting Apple, they would not
> be doing ports to the Mac.  The FSF doesn't actively support all platforms;
> some are only "passively supported".

This is my own opinion -- not Apple's (!) -- but I'm personally quite
skeptical about software moral values, copylefts and selection of some
companies
that are somewhat 'better' than others. As a good example look what 
Sun tried to do by providing money to a small company so this smaller
one could sue OSF. Double moral, dear Watson, double moral. In other
words we should not be so naive concerning company politics, even better
just leave that out from the personal 'change the world' attitude.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

In article <BzHqzF.D7w@acsu.buffalo.edu>, okeefe@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Paul
O'Keefe) wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <keithley-181292171536@kip2-37.apple.com>, keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:
> > 
> > Unfortunately the GNU "copyleft" for GCC (and their varients of lex &
> > yacc), prevent me from using those tools for commercial work.
> 
> The GNU copyleft is much discussed and I don't wish to revive the debate here,
> but the above might lead some to believe that the commercial use of
> copylefted software will undermind thier property rights.
> 
> Several companies have include GNU stuff which thier products
> and I'm not aware that any have suffered as a result.
> 
> So, I suspect that it's Apple's conservative legal policy and not the copyleft
> that prevents Craig from using GCC.

Gee, it's been agest since I was last involved with GNU battles,
and frankly speaking I enjoyed staying out from all that legal crap. So
this is maybe the last comment ever I will have about GNU. Originally
the GNU manifesto had some strict rules stating that anything produced
with GNU tools should be shipped with full sources and copyleft. Due to
pressure from the working programmer community field this manifesto was
changed, and nowadays it should not be a legal problem to produce binaries
and not ship the sources. There's something still going on concerning the
libc++ libraries, but someone else might comment on that.

Anyway, nothing hinders the FSF people to suddenly revise their rules, so
I guess that's why legal people in various software companies warns
for use of GNU tools due to possible sudden future problems. This is the 
scary part FSF and legal issues, in my humble opinion. Or in other words,
as Nietzsche said: "Moral judgement and condemnation is the favorite form
of revenge for the spiritually limited on those who are less so....".

or, "Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster."

I agreee, Nietzsche was a racist :-). And the last cite applies to him
as well.

Cheers,
Kent
PS: Have fun during the holidays breaks!
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

In article <keithley-181292171536@kip2-37.apple.com>, keithley@apple.com
(Craig Keithley) wrote:
> 
> Tools can have command line options and so forth. 
> Custom tools (cross compilers & assemblers), scripts, and projector are the
> reasons why I don't use Think C.  I build a software pack
> 

And I seem to have trailed off.  I guess I posted the wrong file.  Here's
what I was trying to say:  The result of the build process is a single file
(binary or S-record) that contains object code for 680xx and non-680xx
processors.  One file, two or three different processors.

Sorry about that fade-out.

In article <BzHqzF.D7w@acsu.buffalo.edu>, okeefe@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Paul
O'Keefe) wrote:
> 
> 
> So, I suspect that it's Apple's conservative legal policy and not the copyleft
> that prevents Craig from using GCC.
> 

Its very important that you don't take my non-use of the GNU tools as an
indication that you shouldn't use said tools.  I've heard really good
things about the GNU suite of tools, and under different circumstances, I'd
probably use them myself.  

But I stand by my suggestion that you carefully read the GNU documents
(especially for GCC & Bison) before using or porting GNU tools.  This
suggestion  holds true for any software development tool.  These days, with
run-time licenses, copyrights, copylefts, and so forth, its very important
that the software developer understand her or his rights, responsibilities,
and liabilities.


Craig Keithley
Apple Computer, Inc.
keithley@apple.com
"I have absolutely no responsibility in this matter, what-so-ever"

keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes:
>But I stand by my suggestion that you carefully read the GNU documents
>(especially for GCC & Bison) before using or porting GNU tools.  This
>suggestion  holds true for any software development tool.  These days, with
>run-time licenses, copyrights, copylefts, and so forth, its very important
MVw`V>	Lc<|B
>that the software developer understand her or his rights, responsibilities,
>and liabilities.

     It's also worth noting that if you use MacApp, your source code may
be "contaminated" with Apple code, and you may have legal difficulties 
porting it to non-Apple platforms.  Since a port to Windows may make
good business sense, it's probably wise to get legal advice
before using MacApp for any serious work.

					John Nagle

In article <1992Dec20.200609.15692@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John
Nagle) wrote:
>      It's also worth noting that if you use MacApp, your source code may
> be "contaminated" with Apple code, and you may have legal difficulties 
> porting it to non-Apple platforms.  Since a port to Windows may make
> good business sense, it's probably wise to get legal advice
> before using MacApp for any serious work.

As long as you don't port MacApp itself you should *NOT* have any
problems. Are you thinking about TList/TObject style of use? I've
stated N times that for cross-platform issues avoid anything non-GUI
related for your work, you will save a lot of hassles in the long term.


Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

In article <1992Dec20.200609.15692@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John
Nagle) wrote:
> 
>      It's also worth noting that if you use MacApp, your source code may
> be "contaminated" with Apple code, and you may have legal difficulties 

Can you cite a part of the MacApp license agreement that might lead to
problems?  I don't know of any clause that would contaminate your source
code.  While it may say that you cannot port MacApp to another platform,
you are always free to take your source code and port that.  

If by contaminate you mean that you write code that works with MacApp,
which itself can't be ported, then any Mac application would be
contaminated.

Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com

lsr@taligent.com (Larry Rosenstein) writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.200609.15692@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John
>Nagle) wrote:
>> 
>>      It's also worth noting that if you use MacApp, your source code may
>> be "contaminated" with Apple code, and you may have legal difficulties 
>Can you cite a part of the MacApp license agreement that might lead to
>problems?  I don't know of any clause that would contaminate your source
>code.  While it may say that you cannot port MacApp to another platform,
>you are always free to take your source code and port that.  

      The Developer CD Series volume II  (which its literature
says contains sample code) comes with the statement "The Software and Manuals
contain copyrighted material, trade secrets and other proprietary material
and in order to protect them you may not decompile, reverse engineer, 
disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form.
You may not modify, network, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute, or create
derivative works based upon the Software in whole or in part..."
(from paragraph 2, "Restrictions")

      Note that this is on a CD that contains sample code which Apple
encouraged you to copy into your own programs.

      I dropped out of Apple's Certified Developer Program in 1990, so
I'm not up to date on current terms.  But at least back then, these
things came with language sufficiently overreaching that avoiding
contamination with Apple intellectual property would be difficult.
This gives Apple some leverage if you later port something that might
contain some sample code to another platform.

      It's scary having sample code around with that kind of restrictive
language attached.  And destroying the CD, as required to terminate the
agreement under Paragraph 3 of its licence agreement, is a real pain.
Trying to break a CD in half by hand is dangerous.  I finally had to use
a heavy-duty paper punch.

      I think Apple has become more reasonable since 1990, but I haven't
checked.  I don't use MacApp.

						John Nagle

In article <1992Dec22.070755.13175@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John
Nagle) wrote:
> 
> and in order to protect them you may not decompile, reverse engineer, 
> disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form.

I don't have any CDs around to see what the situation is today.  I do know
that MacApp is not on the Developer CD.  And the versions of the MacApp
license that I've seen doesn't place any of those restrictions.

Also, all the Tech Notes and DTS Sample Code I've seen has carried an
explict statement that you can use this and distribute it, provided you do
not sell it.

Larry Rosenstein
Taligent, Inc.

lsr@taligent.com

Organization: Apple Computer Inc.
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.oop.misc,comp.sys.mac.programmer

Organization: (Evil Eye Creature from Mars, Inc.)

In article <lsr-221292105437@lsr.taligent.com>, lsr@taligent.com (Larry
Rosenstein) wrote:
> In article <1992Dec22.070755.13175@netcom.com>, nagle@netcom.com (John
> Nagle) wrote:
> > and in order to protect them you may not decompile, reverse engineer, 
> > disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form.
> 
> I don't have any CDs around to see what the situation is today.  I do know
> that MacApp is not on the Developer CD.  And the versions of the MacApp
> license that I've seen doesn't place any of those restrictions.
 
> Also, all the Tech Notes and DTS Sample Code I've seen has carried an
> explict statement that you can use this and distribute it, provided you do
> not sell it.

Here's the vital part concerning restrictions of Dev. CD use, in
the TeachText file up in the left corner:
2.	RESTRICTIONS.  The Software and Materials contain copyrighted material,
trade secrets and other proprietary material and in order to protect them
you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise reduce
the Software and Materials to a human-perceivable form.  You may not
modify, rent, lease, loan, distribute or create derivative works based upon
the Software and Materials in whole or in part.  You may make only as many
copies of the Software and Materials as are reasonably necessary to
effectuate the permitted uses of the Software and Materials as stated in
Section 1.  However, with one exception, you may use, copy, modify and
incorporate into your own programs the Software and Materials found in the
develop folder within the Periodicals folder, provided you reproduce on
each copy the Apple copyright notice and any other proprietary legends that
were on the original copy of the Software. The exception to this is the
Software and Materials for The NetWork Project article in Issue 11 of
develop, which are copyright 1989-1992 The NetWork Project, StatLab
Heidelberg and are for personal, noncommercial use only.

As Larry stated, you could use, copy, modify and incorporate into
your application sample code from the develop folder. I agree that the
statement does not clearly state that the snippets also belong to this 
category, but this is the case as well. So I will talk with the people
downstairs making sure that this is also included to the license in 
future.

As for MacApp, as I know we don't place any restrictions on people
extending
the framework, but we want to control who is porting over the whole 
framework to another platform, and we could make a deal concerning this
as well, so it's not totally verboten.

All in all, I do think we are overstating the issue, really. If someone
really believes that we are sending out lawyers if they copy in code
from DTS.Lib, then I'm afraid we live in a scary society.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000

ksand@apple.com (Kent Sandvik ) writes:

>> Also, all the Tech Notes and DTS Sample Code I've seen has carried an
>> explict statement that you can use this and distribute it, provided you do
>> not sell it.

>statement does not clearly state that the snippets also belong to this 
>category, but this is the case as well. So I will talk with the people
>downstairs making sure that this is also included to the license in 
>future.

Kent,

	I came onto this thread rather late, but I am writing a program
that uses some code from one of the TechNotes (it is a generic socket
listener) also from TechNote 18.  When done I wanted to release this 
program as shareware/freeware (I havent decided yet).  Am I to assume
I now cannot?  I am modifying the code for my purposes but you can only
write an event loop so many ways and so I used the TechNote code.  Do
I now have to re-write all of it or just give Apple credit (which I 
was going to do anyway)?

				Thanks for the information in advance,
						Johnathon

--
Johnathon Suker                   | If I were human I believe the proper
University of California, Irvine  | response would be, 'Go To Hell'. If I 
Univeristy Library                | were human.
jlsuker@UCI.EDU                   |             Spock - ST:TUC

In article <jsuker.725131248@orion.oac.uci.edu>, jsuker@orion.oac.uci.edu
(Johnathon Suker) wrote:
> >statement does not clearly state that the snippets also belong to this 
> >category, but this is the case as well. So I will talk with the people
> >downstairs making sure that this is also included to the license in 
> >future.
> 	I came onto this thread rather late, but I am writing a program
> that uses some code from one of the TechNotes (it is a generic socket
> listener) also from TechNote 18.  When done I wanted to release this 
> program as shareware/freeware (I havent decided yet).  Am I to assume
> I now cannot?  I am modifying the code for my purposes but you can only
> write an event loop so many ways and so I used the TechNote code.  Do
> I now have to re-write all of it or just give Apple credit (which I 
> was going to do anyway)?

The TN/sample code responsible person told me that snippets and source
code in samples are OK for reuse. Earlier I was worried myself because we
at
DTS have written and are writing more and more re-usable component level
samples, and the main idea with these are really copy-paste, and not worry
about legal issues. But we cleared up this situation months ago.

The core idea with sample/snippet copyright is that we control who updates
the sources, so if we need to revise them, it is our version that
is the official one. We don't want to see something similar happening as
in the case of NewsWatcher for a while, when there were N versions floating
around. Otherwise 're-cycling' of code is all right.

The problem I saw yesterday was that the license agreement didn't clearly
state this -- and I'm talking with the people to make sure that this will
happen.

So don't worry, publish your code, but from an ethical point of view it
makes sense to quote the sources to your snippets.

As for MacApp applications, I must once more state that if Adobe et
the the rest of the big guys dare to publish MacApp based applications,
then the rest of you should sleep during nights as well :-). 

And the last point, if re-use of DTS source code would be verboten, you
would see herds of Apple lawyers everywhere, starting up cases against poor
developers :-). The core thing is that we -- as well as most other
SW companies -- don't like the idea that someone just dumps the asm, tweaks
a couple of instructions, and then ships the binary as their own
copyrighted
version. This has happened. And it's called cheating on the expense of
others' sweat :-(.

I hope we have cleared up this infamous rumor once and for all. And if you
really have a borderline issue, contact Apple Legal, 
SW.LICENSE@Applelink.apple.com, they are a nice bunch of people, I've
talked
with them before, they don't bite, and they would give you the ultimate
Apple statement about anything related to legal issues.

Kent
-------------------
Kent Sandvik (UUCP: ....!apple!ksand; INTERNET: ksand@apple.com)
DISCLAIMER: Private activities on the Net.		
"Don't just do something!  Stand there!"  -- Mystery Science Theater 3000