earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (09/23/88)
Apple Computer Company has won the "honor" of having a file in the GNU
Emacs version 18.52 distribution named after them. (./etc/APPLE, this
is even better than SUNBUG, which I haven't read yet.) I include a
copy of the file below for those who do not have access to the GNU
Emacs files or the latest distribution of them.
Although I agree in principle with much of what the author is trying
to accomplish in this letter, he seems to have missed or ignored
something about Apple Computer and specifically the Macintosh. The
Macintosh is not a "better computer" than most of the competition, it
has better system software. What sells Macintoshes is NOT the
hardware, which is pretty nondescript except for a few innovative
components, but the graphical interface which is contained in ROM and
on the System Disks. Apple is selling software in the case of the
Macintosh, and when people buy one they are pretty much aware of this.
No matter that the guts of the software comes prepackaged in ROMs
where it is difficult to copy, it is still software that makes the
thing work the way it does.
Ownership of rights to software is a great deal more tenuous at
present than ownership of rights to hardware designs, and Apple is
taking steps in this lawsuit thing to establish just what the limits
of its rights to its own software are. I see nothing wrong with them
trying to do so, particularly since their investment in writing said
software must have been considerable. I say, this is a country where
the courts can decide, and they may be able to do a better job than
Richard Stallman et. al. Furthermore, if I buy any manufacturer's
computer, I am pretty sure I am feeding lawyers!
Well, that's my two cents worth. Now, for an amusing question:
In view of the GNU boycott of Apple, will A/UX 1.1 include GNU
Emacs 18.52, and if so will the file ./etc/APPLE come on the A/UX
distribution?
----------------------cut here----------------------
@unnumbered Special Report: Apple's New Look and Feel
You might have read about the new look-and-feel copyright lawsuit,
Apple vs. Hewlett Packard and Microsoft. Apple claims the power to
stop people from writing any program that works even vaguely like a
Macintosh. If they and other look-and-feel plaintiffs triumph, they
will use this new power over the public to put an end to free software
that could substitute for commercial software.
In the weeks after the suit was filed, USENET reverberated with
condemnation for Apple. GNU supporters Richard Stallman, John Gilmore, and
Paul Rubin decided to take action against Apple's no-longer-deserved
reputation as a force for progress. Apple's reputation comes from having
made better computers; but now, Apple is working to make all non-Apple
computers worse. If this deprives the public of the future work of many
companies, the harm done would be many times the good that any one company
does. Our hope was that if the user community realizes how destructive
Apple's present actions are, Apple would lose customers and have more
trouble finding employees.
Our method of action was to print 5000 buttons that say ``Keep Your Lawyers
Off My Computer'' and hand them out at the West Coast Computer Faire. The
center of the button shows the rainbow-apple logo with a Gigeresque mouth
full of ferocious teeth. The picture was drawn by Etienne Suvasa, who also
drew the cover for the GNU Emacs manual. We call the picture ``Apple's New
Look and Feel''.
We gave out nearly 4000 buttons at the show (saving the rest for
afterwards). The result was a great success: the extent of anger at Apple
was apparent to everyone at the show. Many of the invited speakers at the
show wore our buttons, spoke about them, or even waved them from the
podium. The press noticed this: at least one Macintosh user's magazine
carried a photo of the button afterwards.
Some of you may be considering using, buying, or recommending Macintoshes;
you might even be writing programs for them or thinking about it. Please
think twice and look for an alternative. Doing those things means more
success for Apple, and this could encourage Apple to persist in its
aggression. It also encourages other companies to try similar
obstructionism.
[It is because of this boycott that we don't include support for Macontosh
Unix in GNU software.]
You might think that your current project ``needs'' a Macintosh now. If
you find yourself thinking this way, consider the far future. You probably
plan to be alive a year or two from now, and working on some other project.
You will want to get good computers for that, too. But an Apple monopoly
could easily make the price of such computers at that time several times
what it would otherwise be. Your decision to use some other kind of
machine, or to defer your purchases now, might make sure that the machines
your next project needs are affordable when you need them.
Newspapers report that Macintosh clones will be available soon. If
you must buy a Macintosh-like machine, buy a clone. Don't feed the
lawyers!
----------------------cut here----------------------
Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755
(603) 643-4109
Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to threejjd@bbn.com (James J Dempsey) (09/24/88)
In article <10152@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >Apple Computer Company has won the "honor" of having a file in the GNU >Emacs version 18.52 distribution named after them. (./etc/APPLE, this >is even better than SUNBUG, which I haven't read yet.) I include a >copy of the file below for those who do not have access to the GNU >Emacs files or the latest distribution of them. > ... >Well, that's my two cents worth. Now, for an amusing question: > > In view of the GNU boycott of Apple, will A/UX 1.1 include GNU > Emacs 18.52, and if so will the file ./etc/APPLE come on the A/UX > distribution? > I'm pretty sure I remember the original copying notice which came with GNU Emacs said that anyone who distributed EMACS must distribute the entire thing including source code. If this were true, it would require apple to distribute etc/APPLE. However, I just read the 18.52 version of etc/COPYING and it seems a little more liberal. I read it that they could distribute a subset of the distribution as long as they say which files they changed and supply the entire distribution to anyone who asks for it. I hope that this can be worked out because I *love* GNU Emacs and I would find A/UX without GNU Emacs a lot less attractive. I have brought up GNU Emacs 18.52 under A/UX 1.0. Even though RMS won't put these changes into the distribution, I'll mail the modifications to anyone who wants them. I think that in the long run, Apple will be hurt by using proprietary interfaces and that when viable alternatives (NeXT's AIX interface?, Open Look?) are available which are defacto standards and aren't propriatary, Apple will lose business by sticking to their proprietary interface. Hopefully, they will see the light by then and RMS will remove his restriction and support GNU software on Apple products. I hope. --Jim Dempsey-- BBN Communications jjd@bbn.com (ARPA Internet) ..!{decvax, harvard, wjh12, linus}!bbn!jjd
shibumi@well.UUCP (Kenton A. Hoover) (09/25/88)
>entire thing including source code. If this were true, it would >interfaces and that when viable alternatives (NeXT's AIX interface?, >Open Look?) are available which are defacto standards and aren't >propriatary, Apple will lose business by sticking to their proprietary >interface. Hopefully, they will see the light by then and RMS will >remove his restriction and support GNU software on Apple products. > As my mother always told me, de-facto standards are those standards which people choose to use, not those that choose to call themselves such. Also, de-facto standards pretty much require that the standard be available for public review, which is not true of the supposed NeXT AIX interface... -- ! Kenton A. Hoover {hoptoad,hplabs,lll-lcc,ptsfa}!well!shibumi ! ! SNAIL: 535 Pacific Avenue ! ! Aria International San Francisco, CA 94133 ! ! "Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb!" !
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (09/26/88)
In article <8809231927.AA00737@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: > > Ownership of rights to software is a great deal more tenuous at > present than ownership of rights to hardware designs, and Apple is > taking steps in this lawsuit thing to establish just what the limits > of its rights to its own software are. > [Interesting parallel to activities of Hitler and Meese.] > >What Apple is trying to do is define new kinds of "ownership" of the >activities of other people--to gain a new sort of permanent monopoly >never before allowed. If they succeed, we will lose the freedom to >develop systems such as GNU. > On the contrary, Apple is trying to establish the limits of the rights of Apple Computer Company over their own products, developed by Apple Computer Company at great expense, I might add. It is only natural for a company which writes software for profit to want to restrict the copying of said software, and to want to find out more precisely what the legal definition of "copying" might be. Apple's decision to disallow cloning of the Macintosh is surely an unpopular one, but if they should establish the legal right to do so, then they have also established greater protection for the products of others' creative efforts, and not the reverse. If this means that one cannot freely copy another's products, and that the original creator of an artistic work or useful thing has fairly broad rights over those who wish to duplicate it, then as a programmer I would welcome Apple's success in this matter. Sure it is morally superior to give away what I have done, but I don't think I would like to be forced to by law. I do not know what the results of thing might be, but if your rights somehow conflict with those of Apple Computer Company or with mine, then that is why we have courts in this country, to resolve these differences. I can imagine that possible success for Apple in this matter might provide me with greater control over my own work, and with the freedom to perhaps do things which others might find unpopular. Perhaps someday I will write a truly wonderful program, or design a computer with incredible capabilities. Perhaps I might even want to become the exclusive disributor of the thing, to the great dismay of those who would like to benefit from my creative efforts. Too bad for them! >I hope everyone who values GNU software will fight to preserve our >right to produce it. > I hope everyone who makes a living from the fruits of his own creative efforts will make an attempt to understand both sides of this complicated question. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three
jmr@nada.kth.se (Jan Michael Rynning) (09/26/88)
In article <10172@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >[lots of text removed] If this means that one cannot >freely copy another's products, and that the original creator of an >artistic work or useful thing has fairly broad rights over those who >wish to duplicate it, then as a programmer I would welcome Apple's >success in this matter. Sure it is morally superior to give away what >I have done, but I don't think I would like to be forced to by law. > > I do not know what the results of thing might be, but if your >rights somehow conflict with those of Apple Computer Company or with >mine, then that is why we have courts in this country, to resolve >these differences. The result will be that some of the programs you thought were yours, no longer are, because someone else holds the copyright. You may even have to pay damages for programs you wrote five or ten years ago. > I can imagine that possible success for Apple in >this matter might provide me with greater control over my own work, >and with the freedom to perhaps do things which others might find >unpopular. Perhaps someday I will write a truly wonderful program, or >design a computer with incredible capabilities. Perhaps I might even >want to become the exclusive disributor of the thing, to the great >dismay of those who would like to benefit from my creative efforts. >Too bad for them! If your program/computer turns out to be a success, companies with zillions of bucks, and tons of lawyers and copyrights will sue you for copyright infringement, sure as hell. And if you don't have the zillions of bucks to stand up against them, you'll lose. You spent years of creativity and hard work on your program/computer, and one day it's no longer yours. Too bad for you! >[more text removed] Jan Michael Rynning, jmr@nada.kth.se Department of Numerical Analysis If you can't fully handle domains: and Computing Science, ARPA: jmr%nada.kth.se@uunet.uu.net Royal Institute of Technology, UUCP: {uunet,mcvax,...}!nada.kth.se!jmr S-100 44 Stockholm, BITNET: jmr@sekth Sweden. Phone: +46-8-7906288
km@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Ken Mitchum) (09/27/88)
Well, since MicroEmacs and Jove are in the same spirit as GNU emacs, perhaps we should destroy all copies of the Mac versions of these programs. Ken Mitchum Decision Systems Labs km@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (09/29/88)
In article <10152@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) posts from GNU stuff: > Some of you may be considering using, buying, or recommending Macintoshes; > you might even be writing programs for them or thinking about it. Please > think twice and look for an alternative. Doing those things means more > success for Apple, and this could encourage Apple to persist in its > aggression. It also encourages other companies to try similar > obstructionism. > > [It is because of this boycott that we don't include support for Macontosh > Unix in GNU software.] Yeah, Apple sure is the evil empire. I think if GNU boycotts all companies that sue others, GNU will be GNP--Gnu's Not Ported. Come on. Is this lawsuit so much more evil than others that get filed all the time? Does Apple deserve a "boycott" any more than those companies? I guess by "alternative" you mean IBM products? I like this thinking :-|. > But an Apple monopoly > could easily make the price of such computers at that time several times > what it would otherwise be. What Apple monopoly? You mean the monopoly on Apple computers? They've had that all along. Now that they've filed a lawsuit they're a monopoly?! Wake up, wildebeests. -- Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA sullivan@vsi.com Just say to yourself over and over, "President Quayle". I can't do more than 2.
jeff@lorrie.atmos.washington.edu (Jeff Bowden) (09/30/88)
Someone *please* correct me if I'm wrong but a) doesn't the Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit involve more than just 'look and feel'. It was my impression that they (Apple) were basing their claims in part on some abuses they claim Microsoft committed against their agreement. b) shouldn't we leave gnu.emacs out of the Newsgroups line?
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (10/01/88)
>a) doesn't the Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit involve more than just 'look and > feel'. It was my impression that they (Apple) were basing their claims > in part on some abuses they claim Microsoft committed against their > agreement. My own personal theory: Apple in '85 is in dismal shape. Massive layoffs, large inventories, etc. Microsoft, the number one software house in the country, decides they want to release a graphical interface for DOS. Apple says NO you cant copy the mac, do it some other way. Bill gates who gave Apple some feedback on the mac interface and therefore thinks he owns 50% of the code (wouldn't it be a strange world if all your beta testers had a share of your copyright) says ok, then I'm never going to produce anything else for the mac, or update MS-Word (Notice the provison in the Apple-MS contract that MS has to update MS-Word). Since at this point in time, such an annnouncement would have driven Apple into bankruptcy, Apple capitulates. Hence we get Windows, a bad copy of the Mac Interface. Thus, MS commits the ultimate in software hoarding: driving companies out of business by withholding software. Apple is now the Good Guy, seeking to protect other companies from the likes of MS. (Perhaps that's why Jobs is going to Unix/Mach) Apple's legal strategy: The Apple, MS contract was signed under duress and therefore null and void. MS is therefore guilty of using whatever it was the Apple contract gave them the rights to use, and HP is an unfortunate bystander. THEN AGAIN, I COULD BE WRONG. Pierce ---------------------------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu pwetter@caltech.bitnet pwetter@caltech.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------- Weird theory #47: Islamic women can do kinky things with their ankles, that's why the Koran says they aren't supposed to reveal them in public.
spector@vx2.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) (10/01/88)
>/* vx2:comp.sys.mac / wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) / 1:40 pm Sep 30, 1988 */ > Apple's legal strategy: The Apple, MS contract was signed under duress and >therefore null and void. MS is therefore guilty of using whatever it was >the Apple contract gave them the rights to use, and HP is an unfortunate >bystander. ... >Pierce Hmmm... what, then, about MicroSoft's strong-arming Apple not to release Macintosh BASIC... which would result in MicroSoft revoking Apple's licenses for various products (reportedly, AppleSoft BASIC in the Apple II series...) Apple is within it rights to defend what it considers its own. Let the courts figure it out.... _DHMS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David HM Spector New York University Senior Systems Programmer Graduate School of Business ARPAnet: SPECTOR@GBA.NYU.EDU Academic Computing Center USEnet:...!{allegra,rocky,harvard}!cmcl2!spector 90 Trinity Place, Rm C-4 HamRadio: N2BCA MCIMail: DSpector New York, New York 10006 AppleLink: D1161 CompuServe: 71260,1410 (212) 285-6080 "Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life" - Senator Orrin Hatch