🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Sep23.213621.16302@wpi.WPI.EDU> entropy@wintermute.WPI.EDU (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>In article <1991Sep17.001806.3409@cs.sfu.ca> miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman) writes:
>>goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
>>NeXT violated the GPL since they did not release the source code of their
>>modified GNU programs.  It doesn't look like the people at GNU are
>>doing anything about this, so maybe they are not really serious about
>>the GPL.
>
>I thought someone earlier posted that NeXT had the sources available for
>$150? If they don't I certainly hope GNU enforces its copyright, a few million
>from Steve Jobs would get lots of free software written :-)
>-- 

My understanding is that NeXT passed the changes back to GNU.  They 
also made the source code available for duplication charges. The
$150 sounds right, since the media was OD.

I think the compiler is the big one that was modified.  The run time
system and libraries were written from scratch.

Of course this could be wrong and I don't represent any corporate
policy or opinion.


-- 
Joe Freeman	jfreem@uncecs.edu
		jfreeman@next.com (NeXT Mail)
The opinions espressed here are my own and are not shared by my employer  or
anyone else I know of.  Flames can be mailed to me or routed to /dev/null.