Subject: Re: vi update?
To: Peter Seebach <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Olaf Seibert <email@example.com>
Date: 02/19/2000 23:13:41
On Wed 16 Feb 2000 at 13:10:05 -0600, Peter Seebach wrote:
> Anyone opposed to migrating to nvi-1.79?
Any reason not to just use Vim (see http://www.vim.org)? Currently it is
a package. As far as I can see there are no real licensing problems with
it. It's not under the GPL but has home-grown licensing terms, the most
important of which are (see :help copying from within vim):
There are no restrictions on distributing an unmodified copy of Vim.
Parts of Vim may also be distributed, but this text must always be
included. You are allowed to include executables that you made from
the unmodified Vim sources, your own usage examples and Vim scripts.
If you distribute a modified version of Vim, you are encouraged to
send the maintainer a copy, including the source code. Or make it
available to the maintainer through ftp; let him know where it can
be found. If the number of changes is small (e.g., a modified
Makefile) e-mailing the diffs will do. When the maintainer asks for
it (in any way) you must make your changes, including source code,
available to him.
The maintainer reserves the right to include any changes in the
official version of Vim. This is negotiable. You are not allowed
to distribute a modified version of Vim when you are not willing to
make the source code available to the maintainer.
Vim is Charityware. You can use and copy it as much as you like,
but you are encouraged to make a donation to orphans in Uganda. See
Note that I am not entirely impartial here - my name appears in the
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert - firstname.lastname@example.org. -- If one tells the truth,
\X/ .kun.nl -- one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out. (Oscar Wilde)