rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (04/28/86)
In article <355@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > I think the best way would be *regional GNU nodes*, people > who have time and resources to handle guest uucp hookups, > tapes etc. I agree, since my company (yes, that is the owner of the Death Star up there on the organization line) would probably object very strongly to paying its phone $$$ to ship free Unix-based software around the world -- I think you can understand why. While I am somewhat in agreement with the concept behind GNU and the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, I can also see my employer's point. If there was a newsgroup created, I would not carry it through my backbone and would urge other AT&T sites to disallow it as well just to protect my already shaky permission to carry the rest of netnews (and it has been so worthwhile!). -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (05/02/86)
> I agree, since my company (yes, that is the owner of the Death Star > up there on the organization line) would probably object very strongly > to paying its phone $$$ to ship free Unix-based software around the > world -- I think you can understand why. It's worse that that. I think that employee of many companies won't even be allowed to *use* Gnu. Consider: you are only allowed to use it if you agree that any changes you make will be generally distributed. But your employer quite reasonably wants to be able to withhold from general distribution any work they're paying you for. Impasse!
oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (05/06/86)
In article <5373@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> .. would probably object very strongly >> to paying its phone $$$ to ship free Unix-based software around the >> world -- I think you can understand why. No I don't. DEC pays DECUS, IBM pays SHARE for just about the same thing. > >It's worse that that. I think that employee of many companies won't >even be allowed to *use* Gnu. Consider: you are only allowed to use it >if you agree that any changes you make will be generally distributed. >But your employer quite reasonably wants to be able to withhold from >general distribution any work they're paying you for. Impasse! How about all the stuff on the net, on decus tapes, on share tapes ??? Here, I am referring to real companies submitting loads of stuff, not research organizations or universities.. Even if there were a lot of companies with the particular outlook you described, [[allow me to re-describe: you get something for free, that triples your productivity, and thus company saves, but when you hack a little into it, it all of a sudden becomes a major issue] so what ??? real improvements may not necessarily come from them. The point is: this thing is for *everyone*. If a company does not wish to use the best emacs available for *any* price, that is a (?) choice. Nothing is lost for the rest of the computer-folk. ... and I shall wait for yet another episode of FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION vs. EMPIRE oZ -- The best way to have a Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz good idea is to have a Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti].BITNET lot of ideas. Phonet: [416] 667-3976
seifert@hammer.UUCP (Snoopy) (05/07/86)
In article <5373@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> I agree, since my company (yes, that is the owner of the Death Star >> up there on the organization line) would probably object very strongly >> to paying its phone $$$ to ship free Unix-based software around the >> world -- I think you can understand why. > >It's worse that that. I think that employee of many companies won't >even be allowed to *use* Gnu. Consider: you are only allowed to use it >if you agree that any changes you make will be generally distributed. >But your employer quite reasonably wants to be able to withhold from >general distribution any work they're paying you for. Impasse! Consider: someone using GNU on their privately owned machine, on their own time. Disclaimer: I do not know if Tektronix has considered making any official use of GNU. Unofficially, we have GNU-emacs up and running on both Vaxen and 6000 series workstations. Snoopy tektronix!tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy
root@ucsfcca.UUCP (Computer Center) (05/08/86)
> It's worse that that. I think that employee of many companies won't > even be allowed to *use* Gnu. Consider: you are only allowed to use it > if you agree that any changes you make will be generally distributed. > But your employer quite reasonably wants to be able to withhold from > general distribution any work they're paying you for. Impasse! One of us doesn't understand the GNU agreement. It appears to me that you don't have to distribute any changes you make for your own use (your company's in-house use). But if you do want to supply a changed version to someone else it must be offered under the same terms as the original version. That is, what you offer must be redistributable free, include source or the offer of source, no charges for the modifications (reimbursement for distribution costs is explicitly permitted), the changes made must be clearly identified, and you must include the original agreement and availability announcement. Stallman's summary is: In other words, you are welcome to use, share and improve GNU Emacs. You are forbidden to forbid anyone else to use, share and improve what you give them. If I misunderstand, will someone who really knows supply us all with the correct information. Thos Sumner (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!ucsfcca.UCSF!thos)