[gnu.gcc] Why mention jail?

rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/17/89)

Someone read my message about jail and supposed I must be planning
some illegal activity in the near future.

I'm not planning anything of the sort except continuing to develop
compatible replacements for commercial software.  The question is
whether that will remain legal.  If Apple, etc., are successful, there
is a significant chance I'll someday have to choose between giving up
on GNU, going to jail, and going into exile.

fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (06/18/89)

In article <8906170447.AA00854@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>
>I'm not planning anything of the sort except continuing to develop
>compatible replacements for commercial software.  The question is
>whether that will remain legal.  If Apple, etc., are successful, there
>is a significant chance I'll someday have to choose between giving up
>on GNU, going to jail, and going into exile.

I agree with the subject: Why mention jail?

Since copyright infringement judgments are fines (I believe), then why all
these scare tactics talking about going to jail?  Going to jail comes from
refusing to submit to the authority imposing the fine, not from the act
of writing the software.  This is of course, a valid and even sometimes
noble way to protest an unjust law. But let's try to keep the facts clear
and not try to imply (as so many postings here have) that we will be
thrown in jail for writing free software just as surely as if we had
robbed a bank or murdered someone.

To restate RMS's last sentence:

"...I'll someday have to choose between giving up on GNU, paying a fine,
going to jail, and going into exile."

This is a fairer and less inflammatory way to state the case (and a good
case I believe it is) against Apple's lawsuit. RMS mentioned a while back
that he restricted the topics of his discussion in the hopes of getting
many of those that may not agree with his other positions to agree on the
lawsuit.  I respectfully request that he (and his disciples) restrict
their revolutionary rhetoric as well. I keep finding myself agreeing with
the logic and then getting annoyed at the overstatements and personal
attacks in some postings.

Thanks.

========================================================================
Richard Fozzard					"Serendipity empowers"
University of Colorado			
fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu                   (303)492-8136 or 444-3168

minow@mountn.dec.com (Martin Minow) (06/19/89)

In article <8906170447.AA00854@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:

>I'm not planning anything of the sort [illegal activity]
>	except continuing to develop
>compatible replacements for commercial software.  The question is
>whether that will remain legal.  If Apple, etc., are successful, there
>is a significant chance I'll someday have to choose between giving up
>on GNU, going to jail, and going into exile.

Of course, you could also sell out and sue Apple (and others) for violating
your own "look and feel" rights to windowing editors (Emacs), user-programmable
editors (Emacs again),  and online documentation (textinfo), to name just
a few innovations you might have "look and feel" rights to.

Somehow, I don't think that will happen.

Martin Minow
minow%thundr.dec@decwrl.dec.com