mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay (04/13/83)
From: Mark Weiser <mark.umcp-cs@UDel-Relay> I called them: $1000/binary only license, $7000/source license. This could be a lot worse, I suppose.
mo@LBL-CSAM (04/14/83)
From: mo@LBL-CSAM (Mike O'Dell [system]) Is that binary license per-machine, or a blanket license?? -Mike
flon%usc-cse@USC-ECL (04/14/83)
In large measure, I believe Brian is right. Suppose you write a novel in your spare time, and at the request of several hundred, maybe a thousand individuals, you happily mail them a xerox copy and they send you comments and reviews. Then, years later, you send the novel to a publisher who accepts it. Does that then mean that those thousand people who have the earlier copy cannot xerox it for others? Or that they have to burn their copies and buy the book? I'd say that there is maybe no real legal precedent for that sort of thing (though I don't know for sure), and it would probably be up to the judge to decide whether distribution of the earlier copies was illegal. The problem is caused by the sheer number of earlier copies distributed more than anything else. Larry Flon
ell (04/16/83)
That's hardly cheap. I expect that CCA emacs will take over as the standard. I believe they are in the $600 range, but I can't remember if they have a source option at all. One important factor in all this will be the level of service provided. Since one of the main differences between emacs and all the other editors out there is the ability to create packages easily, the lack of MLISP source (Or in the case of CCAemacs, the fact that they don't do things that way) may just mean the demise of emacs altogether. Too bad! Back to vi.
z (04/16/83)
The copyright law is quite clear on this point. Gosling attached copyright notices to all of his previous distributions, therefore they cannot be legally copied without his permission. The copyright law also specifically covers object files generated from copyrighted source programs; they are treated the same as the original programs.