mike@nexus.UUCP (Mike Hickey) (11/04/87)
Has anyone read the current (Vol. 5 # 11) issue of UNIX REVIEW? On page 32 a company call "The Austin Code Works" is offering a product in which: "KYOTO COMMON LISP and GNU EMACS have been merged into one high performance LISP & C programming tool"
weltyc@nysernic.UUCP (11/05/87)
In article <116@nexus.UUCP> mike@nexus.UUCP (Mike Hickey) writes: > > Has anyone read the current (Vol. 5 # 11) issue of UNIX REVIEW? On >page 32 a company call "The Austin Code Works" is offering a product >in which: > > "KYOTO COMMON LISP and GNU EMACS have been merged into one > high performance LISP & C programming tool" I saw that, too, and was just about to post something about it. Is it legal to sell something like this? Has anyone seen it and is it any good? Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!rutgers!nysernic!weltyc
david@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Robinson) (11/06/87)
In article <116@nexus.UUCP>, mike@nexus.UUCP (Mike Hickey) writes: > Has anyone read the current (Vol. 5 # 11) issue of UNIX REVIEW? On > page 32 a company call "The Austin Code Works" is offering a product > in which: > "KYOTO COMMON LISP and GNU EMACS have been merged into one > high performance LISP & C programming tool" This appears to me to be perfectly legal under the GNU General License, the ad also states: "...Including all source code $250" From my non expert reading of the GNU license the comply by giving all the source code with the distribution. If I wanted I could also place an add and sell GNU emacs source for $10000 and be in complience, no one in their right mind would buy it since you can get it for $100 from FSF but if anyone has any money to throw away let me know and I will send you a tape for $10000. -- David Robinson elroy!david@csvax.caltech.edu ARPA david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov ames!elroy!david UUCP Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway!
rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) (11/06/87)
In article <116@nexus.UUCP> mike@nexus.UUCP (Mike Hickey) writes: > Has anyone read the current (Vol. 5 # 11) issue of UNIX REVIEW? On >page 32 a company call "The Austin Code Works" is offering a product >in which: > "KYOTO COMMON LISP and GNU EMACS have been merged into one > high performance LISP & C programming tool" the austin code works, were selling AT&T's yacc for a while (same source is berkeley yacc). if they are selling gnu emacs i hope the free software foundation fries `em. while i don't have much against selling of software, trying to make a quick buck off of someone's good intentions (ie rms and the fsf) is damn slimey. rob -- william robertson rob@philabs.philips.com
nelson@CLUTX.CLARKSON.EDU (Russell Nelson) (11/07/87)
Speaking of media mistakes, Computer Language's review of Unipress's C-Macs attributes the authorship of Gnu Emacs to John Gilmore. Hee hee. -russ
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (11/09/87)
Austin Code Works may be trying to make a quick buck off of
RMS's work. FSF may fry them. Then again, it's easier if we take
care of them ourselves.
Check Article 2(b) of the GNU Public License. Under the
provisions of this license, it seems that the entire product must
come with the same rights as the GNU Emacs it was derived from.
Therefore, anyone who has a copy is entitled to (among other
things) give it away.
Anyone got a copy, and would you care to make it accessible?
--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900
UUCP: *!uunet!cos!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: ai01@hios-pent.arpamike@turing.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (11/10/87)
In article <4787@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, david@elroy (David Robinson) writes: ~In article <116@nexus.UUCP>, mike@nexus.UUCP (Mike Hickey) writes: ~> Has anyone read the current (Vol. 5 # 11) issue of UNIX REVIEW? On ~> page 32 a company call "The Austin Code Works" is offering a product ~> in which: ~> "KYOTO COMMON LISP and GNU EMACS have been merged into one ~> high performance LISP & C programming tool" ~ ~ ~This appears to me to be perfectly legal under the GNU General License, ~the ad also states: ~ "...Including all source code $250" ~ ~From my non expert reading of the GNU license the comply by giving ~all the source code with the distribution. ~ ~If I wanted I could also place an add and sell GNU emacs source ~for $10000 and be in complience, no one in their right mind ~would buy it since you can get it for $100 from FSF but if anyone ~has any money to throw away let me know and I will send you a ~tape for $10000. There is a technical and important difference. If you do that, the recipients of your product can give it to their friends for free. So, I ask...any one who as purchased this advertised item, do you want to share it? Perhaps a bunch of us could pool our cash and buy it for all of us? -- Michael I. Bushnell a/k/a Bach II mike@turing.unm.edu {ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax!turing!mike --- Content: 80% POLYESTER, 20% DACRON.. The waitress's UNIFORM sheds TARTAR SAUCE like an 8'' by 10'' GLOSSY.. -- Zippy the Pinhead Michael I. Bushnell a/k/a Bach II mike@turing.unm.edu {ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax!turing!mike --- Content: 80% POLYESTER, 20% DACRON.. The waitress's UNIFORM sheds TARTAR SAUCE like an 8'' by 10'' GLOSSY.. -- Zippy the Pinhead
rlk@think.COM (Robert Krawitz) (11/10/87)
It seems to me that if ACW is "selling" GNU Emacs under the GNU license, then they're completely in the right as far as FSF goes (what the KCL people think is another matter). So, if they're not trying to stop anyone from further distributing emacs along with source, and they're not nuking the manifesto, then nothing's being violated. Remember, you are entitled to charge a distribution fee for emacs. So if I can find someone who will pay me $10000 for a copy, it's quite all right for me to sell them the tape for that much, as long as I follow the other terms of the license. Actually, if they HAVE merged KCL into emacs somehow (whatever that means; does it mean a FULL common lisp as an emacs programming language? Yow!) then a donation of $250 to the people responsible seems quite reasonable considering the resulting product. If these folks are then donating some of it to the FSF, then it seems to me a lot of people win out of this -- the people who are doing this (obviously), the people using it, and the FSF in terms of publicity and even some money. Anyone from the FSF care to comment on this? It sounds quite interesting if it's on the level... cca >>>>>>>>>> | harvard >>>>>> | bloom-beacon > |think!rlk Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com> rutgers >>>>>> | ihnp4 >>>>>>>> .
crm@duke.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) (11/11/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.4 of Sun Aug 9 1987 on duke (berkeley-unix)
In article <530@hqda-ai.UUCP> merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes:
Austin Code Works may be trying to make a quick buck off of
RMS's work. FSF may fry them. Then again, it's easier if we take
care of them ourselves.
Check Article 2(b) of the GNU Public License. Under the
provisions of this license, it seems that the entire product must
come with the same rights as the GNU Emacs it was derived from.
Therefore, anyone who has a copy is entitled to (among other
things) give it away.
Anyone got a copy, and would you care to make it accessible?
--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900
UUCP: *!uunet!cos!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: ai01@hios-pent.arpa
Okay, I just talked to the people at Austin Code Works, and found out
the following:
(1) The code they are "selling" is a Kyoto Common Lisp with their own
modifications to improve performance. It is included with GNU Emacs.
The Emacs code has modifications to make it a better combination with
KCL.
The performance modifications, by the way, reduce the time required for
(prove-all ...) in the Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover by nearly half.
(2790 seconds vs. 4000-odd.) Complete benchmark information is
available from Austin Code Works.
(2) The code is available under the constraints of the appropriate
licenses, i.e. GNU can be copied under the GNU agreement, KCL under the
KCL agreement. Both agree that the code is copyrighted, but can be
freely copied as long as the copyright agreement is honored. The major
difference between the two is that the owners of the Kyoto Common Lisp
copyright ask new users to sign a license agreement that states the
conditions will be honored.
This free copying includes --- as it should under the license agreements
--- the new code that the ACW people --- notably Bill Schelter --- have
built.
(3) People should know that Kyoto Common Lisp was originally under a
pretty constraining license agreement in this country. Mark Eaton, Bob
Boyer and Michael Ballantine at MCC talked the original developers into
making it free software. Austin Code Works is one group that is now
distributing it. Michael Ballantine asked me to make sure to mention
Yuasa, Hagia, and Nakajima, who very kindly agreed to this freeing of
the code.
(4) It is also available for FTP via rascal.ics.utexas.edu. This
includes ports to many machines. This has not been widely publicized
yet because it is not 100% a stable product, but it is there.
(5) ACW is actively building ports to other machines, sometimes under
contract from one company or another. The new ports are ALSO going to
be made available freely, and all porting contracts have specified this.
(6) The code is busily being ported to GNU C, and will be available in
that form. KCL and the Emacs extensions were offered to FSF/Stallman;
they refused because they didn't want to have to deal with the "sign the
paper" free copying agreement.
So, in other words, the Austin Code Works has PRECISELY fulfilled one of
Stallman's predictions, i.e. that GNU and other free software would
generate companies that provide service and support but allow free
copying; ACW is doing so with Emacs AND a substantial and useful chunk
of software beyond Emacs; and they are charging only $50 dollars or so
more than Stallman and FSF charge for an EMACS distribution.
flame: begin
BUT in the meantime, ACW has been being villified by people who HAD NOT
ONE DAMNED WORD OF EVIDENCE that ACW was doing anything wrong, and who
could not be bothered to make a SINGLE DAMNED PHONE CALL before they
started accusing ACW of the Dread Evil of Copyright Violation.
THIS IS NOT A JOKE!!! This is bloody well near to criminal libel,
because copyright violation IS a crime, and there is no truth to the
rumor that they were somehow trying to make illicit profits on GNU Emacs
and KCL.
WORSE EVEN THAN that (if it is possible) is the fact that this can't be
very encouraging to others who might want to co-operate with Stallman's
free software ideas. Why should ANYONE BOTHER? Those of you who have
said things like "I hope FSF burns them" should think very carefully on
this.
I think there are a number of people one this mail group who should now
consider seriously posting complete and abject apologies for shooting
off they virtual mouths and insulting others without a SHRED not a
DAMNED SHRED of reality. They should be ashamed of themselves.
By the way --- the author of this completely unashamed flame has no
connection with Austin Code Works except for a phone call from North
Carolina to texas this afternoon; has no connection with the Free
Software Foundation other than the purchase of an Emacs manual; and is
not all that sure of the correctness of the free software idea. He can
however tell a hawk from a handsaw when the wind is in the proper
quarter.
end flame.
--
Charlie Martin (crm@cs.duke.edu,mcnc!duke!crm) matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Keeper of the Sacred Tablets) (11/11/87)
In article <530@hqda-ai.UUCP> merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes:
)
) Then again, it's easier if we take care of them [Austin Code Works]
) ourselves. ...
) Under the provisions of this license, ... anyone who has a copy is
) entitled to (among other things) give it away.
) Anyone got a copy, and would you care to make it accessible?
Now just a minute. Assuming that ACW is indeed complying with the
GNU license, I certainly don't want to go out of my way to make them
sorry they used GNU code! Let's not discourage programmers from
writing more publicly available programs!
________________________________________________________
Matt University matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Crawford of Chicago {astrovax,ihnp4}!oddjob!mattmike@cimcor.UUCP (11/11/87)
In article <530@hqda-ai.UUCP>, merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes: > > Austin Code Works may be trying to make a quick buck off of > RMS's work. FSF may fry them. Then again, it's easier if we take > care of them ourselves. > Perhaps, I may be the only one here to defend Austin Code Works. I really like the company in that it provides a place I can go and buy usually public domain code which has already been modified for Msdos (yuk) and contains all of the binaries to make it run. Sure, they shouldn't be selling copyrighted software and I won't try to defend that but as a resource to software that can be copied and distributed (especially for just the cost of distribution as is often the case with them), I'm all for it. One problem I see in providing UNIX for the common man is the lack of having resources like this for UNIX programs. We have the net, but Joe Blow reading his PC magazines doesn't realize the tremendous amount of free software available for UNIX and so he never tries it...Thinks no one else is using it. Moreover, even if he had seen the net he would quickly realize how hard it is to make programs actually run on his system - particularly this 80286 based machine (another yuk). I was wondering about supplying precompiled software I've fought with to people such as News 2.11, uEmacs, Xlisp, Kermit, XYZmodem, Nethack ... for the cost of distriibution - but when reading the copyright notices on some of this software it seems that distributing for commerical gain is usually prohibited. Is distributing for the cost of distribution also then prohibited? Is an advertising considered part of that cost? How else are we to present the benifits of UNIX to the mass marketplace? Legal or not, what made DOS popular is all of the illegally copied software that people have - Borland sold 500,000 copies of Turbo Pascal but there were probably 3 times that many copied. Yet under UNIX, we have all of this great copyable software that no one ever hears about. -Mike uunet!rosevax!cimcor!mike {ihnp4, amdahl, rutgers}meccts!cimcor!mike
lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (11/11/87)
$ There is a technical and important difference. If you do that, the $ recipients of your product can give it to their friends for free. So, Actually, you can only give away the Gnu Emacs portion, not the entire product........ -- j UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke "And it's just a box of rain..." ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu (35.8.8.151)
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (11/11/87)
That's OK, Unipress still gets mail asking for copies of GNU emacs. Actually, Unipress got a bigger laugh out of the article that most. It was the first thing they noticed. -Ron
rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) (11/13/87)
>THIS IS NOT A JOKE!!! This is bloody well near to criminal libel, >because copyright violation IS a crime, and there is no truth to the >rumor that they were somehow trying to make illicit profits on GNU Emacs >and KCL. The ad said: BEGIN QUOTE Kyoto Common Lisp and GNU Emacs have been merged into on high performance LISP and C programming tool. THINK IN LISP BUILD IN EMACS RUN IN C Including ALL SOURCE CODE send $250 free shipping on all prepaid orders. END QUOTE gee, from their ad i can easily tell they aren't really selling GNUemacs or kyoto common lisp. they are just selling their modifications, right? bullshit. they hacked wrote some elisp glue, and profiled KCL and decided to sell KCL and GNUemacs. they mention nothing about modifications and nothing about speed increases. >WORSE EVEN THAN that (if it is possible) is the fact that this can't be >very encouraging to others who might want to co-operate with Stallman's >free software ideas. Why should ANYONE BOTHER? Those of you who have >said things like "I hope FSF burns them" should think very carefully on >this. gee, when do semi-ligit software houses "co-operate" with Stallman's free software ideas? by the way, is ACW still selling their "yacc" for pc's? sort of reminds me of btg and daystrom. rob -- william robertson rob@philabs.philiroblem
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (11/15/87)
In article <1973@briar.Philips.Com> Rob Robertson writes: >THIS IS NOT A JOKE!!! This is bloody well near to criminal libel, >because copyright violation IS a crime, and there is no truth to the >rumor that they were somehow trying to make illicit profits on GNU Emacs >and KCL. The ad said: BEGIN QUOTE ... Including ALL SOURCE CODE send $250 free shipping on all prepaid orders. END QUOTE ... bullshit. they hacked wrote some elisp glue, and profiled KCL and decided to sell KCL and GNUemacs. they mention nothing about modifications and nothing about speed increases... If I were going to be abusive to someone in a public forum, I would at least try to ensure that I knew what I was talking about. You, Mr. Robertson do not know what you are talking about. In fact, you are suffering from a common and severe misconception about the GNU copyright. There is _nothing_ in the GNU copyright that prevents people from selling GNU software or modifications. There is only the restriction that source must be made available, and that derived software must be under the GNU copyright. The add you quoted states that software is available, and there is no reason to think the software is not under the GNU copyright. Even if they didn't make any major modifications (its not clear whether they did or not), they could sell _pure_ GNU Emacs as long as they followed the copyright restrictions. ... gee, when do semi-ligit software houses "co-operate" with Stallman's free software ideas? ... Software houses "co-operate" with Stallman's free software ideas when they improve Stallman's sofware and distribute the results freely. Get the peanut butter out of your ears. Stallman has said many times that the "free" in his free software does _not_ refer to money, it refers to free distribution. Good grief, Stallman and the FSF sell GNU software.
wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) (11/16/87)
In article <2833@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >Stallman has said many times >that the "free" in his free software does _not_ refer to money, it >refers to free distribution. I'm not sure what you're paraphrasing here. Reread the copying policies on GNU emacs more carefully. >Good grief, Stallman and the FSF sell GNU software. Wrong. They sell _tapes_ which contain GNU software; they are charging for the cost of the tape, plus the labor and wear&tear on the hardware involved in copying. They consider the bits themselves to be free, and won't charge you for them if you can pick them up in a way that won't cost them anything. The basis of Stallman's argument (which I don't happen to agree with) is that you can't charge money for information, because you can give a copy of it to someone without losing it yourself. - Bill Sommerfeld wesommer@athena.mit.edu Disclaimer: I don't believe in the "GNU manifesto" and the software socialism of his proposed "software tax", but I have yet to see anything but good come out of the GNU project.
bob@aargh.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (11/16/87)
In article <1808@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes: >In article <2833@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >>... >>Good grief, Stallman and the FSF sell GNU software. > >Wrong. They sell _tapes_ which contain GNU software ... They >consider the bits themselves to be free, and won't charge you for >them if you can pick them up in a way that won't cost them >anything... Right. Otherwise, one could say that the telephone company, the vendors of PC Pursuit services, or whoever you use is selling you GNU software when you pick it up via semi-anonymous UUCP from osu-cis. And that the maintainers of the various Internet gateways are selling it to you when they graciously allow your IP packets to go through their machines on the way to prep.ai.mit.edu when you FTP it directly from the source. I doubt that any of those folks would want to be put in that position, for any number of reasons, the {\em least} of which is likely the GNU Copyleft and Manifesto. -=- Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 bob@ohio-state.{arpa,csnet} or ...!cbosgd!osu-cis!bob soon: bob@cis.ohio-state.edu
drw@culdev1.UUCP (Dale Worley) (11/16/87)
rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: | The ad said: | BEGIN QUOTE | Kyoto Common Lisp and GNU Emacs have been merged | into on high performance LISP and C programming tool. | [...] | gee, from their ad i can easily tell they aren't really selling | GNUemacs or kyoto common lisp. they are just selling their | modifications, right? | | bullshit. they hacked wrote some elisp glue, and profiled KCL and | decided to sell KCL and GNUemacs. they mention nothing about | modifications and nothing about speed increases. | | gee, when do semi-ligit software houses "co-operate" with Stallman's | free software ideas? There's been a vast amount of ranting about this product. Does *anyone* out there have any evidence that ACW is *not* conforming *exactly* to the FSF licensing restrictions? (In particular, FSF allows you to sell copies of GNU Emacs for $1,000,000 -- the only catch is that your customers are free to redistribute it, so you might not sell many copies. BUT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO!) And if there is no such evidence, could we all please stop assuming that ACW is being a bad boy, just because they are (gasp!) trying to *sell* something? Jeez! Dale -- Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!culdev1!drw If you get fed twice a day, how bad can life be?
crm@duke.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) (11/16/87)
Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.4 of Sun Aug 9 1987 on duke (berkeley-unix) In article <1973@briar.Philips.Com> rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: >THIS IS NOT A JOKE!!! This is bloody well near to criminal libel, >because copyright violation IS a crime, and there is no truth to the >rumor that they were somehow trying to make illicit profits on GNU Emacs >and KCL. The ad said: BEGIN QUOTE Kyoto Common Lisp and GNU Emacs have been merged into on high performance LISP and C programming tool. THINK IN LISP BUILD IN EMACS RUN IN C Including ALL SOURCE CODE send $250 free shipping on all prepaid orders. END QUOTE gee, from their ad i can easily tell they aren't really selling GNUemacs or kyoto common lisp. they are just selling their modifications, right? bullshit. they hacked wrote some elisp glue, and profiled KCL and decided to sell KCL and GNUemacs. they mention nothing about modifications and nothing about speed increases. So what. the GNU license doesn't say you can't sell GNU, only that you can't restrict people's right to copy and distribute the copies you sell. The following is an extract of the GNU Copying policies as they exist with version 18.47, drawn from help ^C: COPYING POLICIES 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of GNU Emacs source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each file a valid copyright notice such as "Copyright (C) 1986 Free Software Foundation", containing the year of last change and name of copyright holder for the file in question; keep intact the notices on all files that refer to this License Agreement and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the GNU Emacs program a copy of this License Agreement along with the program. You may charge a distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a copy. [Note that this specifically allows them to charge for copies. Last I heard, GNU alone cost $200 from FSF; they distribute more code for $250. The blackguards.] 2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs source code or any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating who last changed such files and the date of any change; and b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical to those contained in this License Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive warranty protection to third parties, at your option). [In other words, the hacks and changes TO GNU EMACS must be put on the same basis as GNU; this is my understanding of what the Austin Code Works has done. The KCL stuff is on a slightly different basis, as the developers of KCL have required, but it is equally available to all, no license fee required.] >WORSE EVEN THAN that (if it is possible) is the fact that this can't be >very encouraging to others who might want to co-operate with Stallman's >free software ideas. Why should ANYONE BOTHER? Those of you who have >said things like "I hope FSF burns them" should think very carefully on >this. gee, when do semi-ligit software houses "co-operate" with Stallman's free software ideas? Send out for a side order of logic, would you? Calling them "semi-legit" does't change the fact that they are indeed (so far as I can tell at this range) completely in compliance with the GNU license. Do you have any facts to the contrary? HAVE YOU EVEN TROUBLED YOURSELF TO CHECK? Or is your response purely the product of a half-able reading between the lines of one advertisement? The Austin Code Works phone is (512) 258-0785. Why don't you try asking THEM your questions? by the way, is ACW still selling their "yacc" for pc's? Not according to their ad -- they are selling bison for PC's now. $25.00. -- Charlie Martin (crm@cs.duke.edu,mcnc!duke!crm)
gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) (11/17/87)
In article <1808@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes: In article <2833@megaron.arizona.edu> gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >Stallman has said many times >that the "free" in his free software does _not_ refer to money, it >refers to free distribution. I'm not sure what you're paraphrasing here. Reread the copying policies on GNU emacs more carefully. Well, I probably shouldn't have paraphrased Stallman without having a copy around to back me up. >Good grief, Stallman and the FSF sell GNU software. Wrong. They sell _tapes_ which contain GNU software; they are charging for the cost of the tape, plus the labor and wear&tear on the hardware involved in copying.... Sophistry. (That's the gentleman's word for "bullshit". :-) You can argue that they are only charging for a service, but they won't send you any software free. If you can get it free from someone else, you are not prevented from doing so, but that doesn't mean they aren't selling their copy. In any case, this article was a response to an article bashing a software company for "selling" GNU Emacs. The company could use the same sophistry and be as philosophically pure as the FSF (Assuming the FSF _does_ resort to that argument, I don't believe they do.) ...The basis of Stallman's argument (which I don't happen to agree with) is that you can't charge money for information, because you can give a copy of it to someone without losing it yourself. I probably shouldn't argue this, because it is unresolvable without intervention from Stallman (and even then the loser could claim Stallman's earlier statements were unclear) but I believe you are misreading him. Stallman (according to Gudeman) only says that it is wrong to use a copyright to prevent others from distributing and using software when such distribution or use doesn't cost the copyright holder anything. Disclaimer: I don't believe in the "GNU manifesto" and the software socialism of his proposed "software tax", but I have yet to see anything but good come out of the GNU project. Disclaimer: Ditto disclaimer above. I'm a confirmed capitalist.
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) (11/17/87)
This is a bit of a note to the net in general, and the folks
as Austin Code Works (ACW) in particular. For background info,
see the referenced article.
First, to ACW:
==============
My original posting has been wildly mis-interpreted, which is
my own fault for not being clear in the first place. I did jump
the gun a bit. Later information shows that ACW is in fact in
compliance with both the letter and spirit of the GNU license.
For the implications that ACW is somehow stealing the efforts of
the Free Software Foundation, my apologies. (Munch, mumble, hard
to speak clearly around all that shoe leather.)
Now, to the Net, including ACW:
===============================
My intention was to suggest that for FSF to hire a lawyer to
protect GNU was unnecessary. By following the terms of the GNU
license, instead of the more restrictive vendor's license, the
users of a product based on a hijacked GNU could effectively
liberate it. (Again, ACW did NOT steal GNU. Not even close.) I
think this kind of action is quite defensible, given the terms of
the GNU license.
There is also something to be learned here. The normal
practice of a software vendor is to use a restrictive license.
When we see an advertisement for a software product, it is quite
reasonable to assume that this type of license applies. When that
same advertisement proclaims that the product is based on GNU,
confusion, and worse, results. In the end, it turns out that ACW
did some very nice things here, but no one knew about them until
after the flames hit the net.
When using GNU as the basis of a commercial product, it would
be very helpful if the software vendor would somehow let us know
that they are applying the terms of the GNU license. I understand
that space in an ad comes dear, and the marketing types won't want
to pay for it just to satisfy a bunch of hackers on some net. I
suggest that the net itself should be used for propagation of this
information. A short posting to comp.emacs or comp.newprod would
provide much more information than a 1/4-page ad, and would open a
channel between the users and the vendors.
Besides, that would have meant I still had a pair of shoes
without teeth marks.
--
David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900
UUCP: *!uunet!cos!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: ai01@hios-pent.arparon@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (11/17/87)
You can charge anything you damn well please for GNU Emacs as long as you do not prohibit the people you sell it to from distributing it along the terms of the GNU distribution agreement. If you don't want to pay $250 for the software, find someone else who did who'll dupe it for you, or get a bunch of people together and do it. The idea is to provide for free access to the software, but not to force legitimate businesses to duplicate GNU and other similar software at a loss. -Ron
drw@culdev1.UUCP (11/19/87)
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes: | By following the terms of the GNU | license, instead of the more restrictive vendor's license, the | users of a product based on a hijacked GNU could effectively | liberate it. [...] I | think this kind of action is quite defensible, given the terms of | the GNU license. | | There is also something to be learned here. In principle, you can sell someone a copy of something copyrighted under the condition that he observes conditions more stringent than what the copyright law requires. (For instance, the GNU license does this.) This sort of provision is generally enforcable in court. In the case where you buy something from someone re-selling GNU code, you get involved in the interaction between the two contracts (GNU & reseller, reseller & you). I believe that you can successfully argue that the reseller had no right to restrict you from redistributing GNU yourself, by virtue of the licence between FSF and the reseller. (But make sure you know exactly what code is covered by the GNU license and what is not.) I was talking to a laywer about this sort of thing a few days ago. It seems that there is a concept that federal law can preempt contracts in certain areas. In particular, if a license forbids a user to, say, make backup copies (which is permitted by the software copyright law), the courts may decide that federal law preempts the contract, and will permit the user to make backup copies anyway. There was a recent case involving the Louisiana "shrink-wrap" law, in which the license forbade backup copies, and the court ruled the shrink-wrap law (and through it, the license) unenforcable in this instance. It seems that the courts are much more likely to void contracts by such arguments when it is clear that the buyer is a "consumer", and didn't have any genuine opportunity to negotiate with the buyer. Also, it seems that shrink-wrap laws are being voided by the courts right and left. As always, check with a lawyer first... Dale -- Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!culdev1!drw If you get fed twice a day, how bad can life be?
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (11/21/87)
Re: all the hooraw about the Austin Code Works, Kyoto Common Lisp, and GNU
Emacs:
I could have *sworn* that Len Tower of the FSF made this clear a few months
back when he posted a message describing the GNU copyleft in "human-readable"
terms. But then, since when does anyone on the net pay attention when someone
who is in the know says anything?
--
Brandon S. Allbery necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu
{hoptoad,harvard!necntc,{sun,cbosgd}!mandrill!hal,uunet!hnsurg3}!ncoast!allbery
Moderator of comp.sources.misc