mg@unipress.uucp (Mike Gallaher) (08/01/85)
From: rms@mit-prep
Date: 27 Jun 85 11:58:34 GMT
Unfortunately, this will delay the the time you receive the GNU Emacs
manual. I'm sure Unipress is happy to have accomplished that.
Software sharers are happy if you get good software. Software-hoarding
organizations such as Unipress and CCA are looking for ways they can
restrict you, because each restriction they can manage to impose means
more pressure on you to pay them. If there is an alternative to paying
them, they want to close it off.
Some people working on the Gnu project obviously feel that they are at odds
with UniPress, and that UniPress is doing everything in its power to damage
them. If making UniPress be the bad guys, and imagining yourself to be
pitted against them for the good of all mankind, gives you the impetus you
need to write good software, it seems to have worked - Gnumacs is a
fantastic editor. I suppose every cause needs a nemesis, but please
choose one that is really on the other side.
UniPress has no quarrel with the Gnu project. It bothers me that people
seem to think we are trying to hinder it. In fact, we hardly did or said
much at all, except to point out that the Gnumacs code had James Gosling's
copyright in it. We have not done anything to keep anyone from using
Gnumacs, nor do we intend to now that it is "Gosling-free" (version
16.56).
You can consider this to be an official statement from UniPress: There is
nothing in Gnumacs version 16.56 that could possibly cause UniPress to get
upset. If you were afraid to use Gnumacs because you thought we would
hassle you, don't be, on the basis of version 16.56.
Can we all please get back to our work now, and stop arguing about
copyright law???
mgpreece@ccvaxa.UUCP (08/05/85)
Could we have a little applause, please, for Unipress for issuing a direct, succinct statement about the status of Gosling-free Emacs. They were under no particular legal or moral obligation to do so. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (08/08/85)
In article <11600003@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: > >Could we have a little applause, please, for Unipress for issuing >a direct, succinct statement about the status of Gosling-free Emacs. >They were under no particular legal or moral obligation to do so. > >-- >scott preece >gould/csd - urbana >ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece You're right, of course. *Applause*. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
jlm@stl.UUCP (John "Rainbow" Messenger) (08/09/85)
Hooray for Unipress for making a statement acknowledging that people can use GNU Emacs without fear. They didn't have to say anything, and silence from them might well have resulted in less people using GNU Emacs than now will. I'm sure that Unipress have done themselves a favour in making this statement as well as doing GNU a favour, because they were getting a bad press on the net. Their statement will improve their image. Let us hope that commercial software companies will not try to impede the work of the Free Software Foundation. [Support GNU.] -- -- John Messenger (...!mcvax!ukc!stc!stl!jlm)
mly@mit-prep (08/09/85)
From: Richard Mlynarik <mly@mit-prep> Could we have a little applause, please, for Unipress for issuing a direct, succinct statement about the status of Gosling-free Emacs. They were under no particular legal or moral obligation to do so. scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece mg (who posted it, and maintains gosmacs) is a cool person, and probably has a lot to do with keeping the corporate cretins at bay. (At least as far as gnu is concerned) So let's hear it for Mike at least. However, I think that you will find that Unipress itself is as slimey as any other corporation in the business --- don't let one good impression spoil their image! =;-)
edwards@h-sc1.UUCP (william edwards) (08/12/85)
In article <4919@mit-eddie.UUCP> mly@mit-prep writes: >However, I think that you will find that Unipress itself is as slimey as >any other corporation in the business --- don't let one good >impression spoil their image! =;-) DISCLAIMER: The following does not represent anyone's opinion but my own. It does not reflect the official stance of Harvard University. FLAME: I guess mly's comments are more fallout from the great Gosling code controversy, but I find them unhelpful and unconstructive. Just what does he mean by "slimy"? Is he accusing Unipress of illegal or immoral acts? If he is, he had better either substantiate what he says with hard facts, or not express such opinions in "print" (yes, this arguably "printed material" you're reading). Such remarks veer close to libel. GNU is not going to help its cause by indiscriminately calling people or companies "slimy". These remarks have no bearing on what I think of GNUemacs or of the GNU project as a whole. GNUemacs is a fantastic editor, and the cause of a public-domain UNIX is a noble one. Let's not endanger that cause with useless acrimony. Bill Edwards
vijay@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (P. Vijay) (08/16/85)
I have been seeing a number of postings indicating that they (the posters) were quite offended by the statement made by Richard Mlynarik in the following article. In article <4919@mit-eddie.UUCP>, mly@mit-prep writes: > [He was answering someone's posting that indicated that Unipress > had been called the 'bad guys' for too long, and it was time that > it was shown appreciation for its stand, as indicated by an > official statement by Mike Gallaher] > > However, I think that you will find that Unipress itself is as slimey as > any other corporation in the business --- don't let one good > impression spoil their image! =;-) If *you* (the offendee) has not as yet noticed, this paragraph was clearly marked with a 'smiley face'. This is supposed to indicate that all that stuff about "slimey corporations" is meant to be in the lighter vein, i.e. funny. You may not appreciate the humour, but at least before unloading your offended sense of propriety, *PLEASE* re-read the message and then say whatever you have to. --Vijay--
ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) (08/19/85)
In article <3300@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> vijay@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (P. Vijay) writes: > >> ....any other corporation in the business --- don't let one good >> impression spoil their image! =;-) > >If *you* (the offendee) has not as yet noticed, this paragraph >was clearly marked with a 'smiley face'. This is supposed to indicate >that all that stuff about "slimey corporations" is meant to be in the >lighter vein, i.e. funny. You may not appreciate the humour, but at >least before unloading your offended sense of propriety, *PLEASE* >re-read the message and then say whatever you have to. > MY GOODNESS! I suppose this means that if you smile as you shove the knife in then it doesn't really hurt, so dont complain. Oh well, in that case: P. Vijay you are an idiot! (:-) Ray Dunn ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray
tower@mit-prep (08/26/85)
From: Leonard H. Tower Jr. <tower@mit-prep> In Article-I.D.: usl.624 usl!jla@mit-eddie (Joe Arceneaux) writes: > The Unipress-GNU controversey has already begun to recede into the back > of my mind, but I seem to recall reports to the effect that Unipress > was considering some form of action against GNU. Anyway, SOMEthing must > have prompted RMS to re-write the code. If it was not Unipress, then it > must have been the volume of articles suggesting that there were grounds > for legal action. While RMS' action was perhaps the best possible answer > to controversey, it seems rather "slimy" to me that he was indeed forced > to do so. > Such unpalatable affairs are only useful in that they further illuminate > the worthy goals of the Freeware project. > -- RMS rewrote the display code because it was: "the best possible answer to" the controversy. It removed any possible doubts about the public domainness of GNU Emacs. Note that RMS still feels the Gosling display code is in the public domain, and available for use. It was just more important to have GNU Emacs be free of any controversy and decisions to not use it because of that controversy. I hope we can lay this whole thing to bed, and get back to producing good public-domain software. Len Disclaimer: ;-} I am not speaking for RMS here, but am recounting what I know of the reasons for the decision. I am a member of the GNU project.
jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux) (08/27/85)
In article <521@h-sc1.UUCP> edwards@h-sc1.UUCP (william edwards) writes: > > FLAME: > > I guess mly's comments are more fallout from the great Gosling > code controversy, but I find them unhelpful and unconstructive. Just > what does he mean by "slimy"? Is he accusing Unipress of illegal or > immoral acts? If he is, he had better either substantiate what he says > with hard facts, or not express such opinions in "print" (yes, this > arguably "printed material" you're reading). Such remarks veer close > to libel. GNU is not going to help its cause by indiscriminately > calling people or companies "slimy". The Unipress-GNU controversey has already begun to recede into the back of my mind, but I seem to recall reports to the effect that Unipress was considering some form of action against GNU. Anyway, SOMEthing must have prompted RMS to re-write the code. If it was not Unipress, then it must have been the volume of articles suggesting that there were grounds for legal action. While RMS' action was perhaps the best possible answer to the controversey, it seems rather "slimy" to me that he was indeed forced to do so. Such unpalatable affairs are only useful in that they further illuminate the worthy goals of the Freeware project. -- Joe Arceneaux Lafayette, LA {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla