massar@godot.UUCP (J.P. Massar) (03/01/85)
> In conclusion, then: No, there is no public domain Gosling's Emacs. Yes, > there are versions you can get, with some difficulty, without paying the > (rather high) price which Unipress charges. No, Mr Gosling will not want to > give permission to do so very often. For a piece of code as complicated and as useful as Emacs (either CCA's / Zimmerman's or Unipress's / Goslings) the 'rather high' price which is charged is ridiculously low! Emacs could never have been developed commerically and sold at these prices... The only reason supported versions of Emacs exist at all is that James Gosling and Steve Zimmerman worked long hours for no compensation (Richard Stallman and Chris Torek should be included here also) many years ago. Is it not worth some $200 / person (or less, depending on how many people you have on a machine who use Emacs) as a ONE TIME COST? Give me a break... Note: Please, I do not mean to insult whomever wrote the above comment. I merely want people to think about the effort involved and the 'cost/benefit' ratio of an editor like Emacs. I got paid to work on CCA Emacs / Elisp, but appreciate all the work that was done gratis before that. -- -- JP Massar, Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA -- ihnp4!godot!massar -- massar@cca-unix
karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (03/04/85)
---------- >>In conclusion, then: No, there is no public domain Gosling's Emacs. Yes, >>there are versions you can get, with some difficulty, without paying the >>(rather high) price which Unipress charges. No, Mr Gosling will not want to >>give permission to do so very often. > >For a piece of code as complicated and as useful as Emacs (either CCA's / >Zimmerman's or Unipress's / Goslings) the 'rather high' price which is >charged is ridiculously low! ---------- Umm...OK, you think it's a low price. I, personally, view it as somewhat high. It's a matter of perception, I guess. Knowing that other editors are out there, some of them very good and in the public domain, I happen to view it as a bit on the expensive side. Personal opinion, and all that. Anyway, I've also been informed in the mail that my comments about the proprietary nature of Emacs were incorrect. Someone from UCB tells me that there are in fact *2* versions of Gosling-derived Emacs which are being "freely distributed," and he suggested that I watch net.emacs for details. Frankly, I'm waiting not-so-patiently, because I'd like to get in on this good information myself, and get a better version than that which I've got right now. Ah, well; it looks like I made a pretty large mistake; sorry about that, folks. "Confusion will be my epitaph," as King Crimson said... -- Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +==-> cbrma!kk @ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl
ss@wanginst.UUCP (Sid Shapiro) (03/07/85)
> ---------- > >>In conclusion, then: No, there is no public domain Gosling's Emacs. Yes, > >>there are versions you can get, with some difficulty, without paying the > >>(rather high) price which Unipress charges. There is something called JOVE (Jonathan's Own Version of Emacs) which was distributed several USENIX tapes ago. I don't know if it is public domain, but it certainly is cheap (free if you already have the tape, else about $100). / Sid /