rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/03/89)
I am not considering ending the boycott of Apple, Lotus, and Ashton-Tate. Instead, I am working to expand its effectiveness. Several people on this list have already told me that they are not going to buy from Apple, specifically because of the lawsuit. In other words, they are participating in the boycott. One is in a position to recommend large purchases. I know the boycott is having some effect. I am now helping to set up a new organization, the League for Programming Freedom, whose purpose is specifically to fight look-and-feel copyright through the boycott and other methods. Our demonstration against Lotus has received considerable national press coverage, in which the boycott was described. While the boycott cannot directly prevent a suit, it can raise the cost of a suit to a point where some companies might decide not to sue. It also helps unite public opinion against the principle of look-and-feel copyright, and that can influence both courts and legislators. It may be a shame that some people who previously bought Macintoshes will be somewhat inconvenienced by boycotts by developers. However, this is minor compared with the importance of the main issue. (The Macintosh users who disagree are clearly motivated by different goals.) Some people seem to think that, because I support free software and software sharing, I am obliged to do so in a blind, undiscriminating fashion. You might as well say that anyone who is against "killing people" (i.e., murder) must, for consistency, also be a pacifist and should surrender rather than fight an invading army or a looter. I agree that my stubborn refusal to cooperate with a project, such as porting GCC to AU/X, is a form of hostilities. If I treated innocent people that way, it would be wrong. However, treating aggressors this way is justified and necessary. I am not a pacifist.
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (06/06/89)
In article <8906021909.AA00268@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > >I agree that my stubborn refusal to cooperate with a project, such as >porting GCC to AU/X, is a form of hostilities. If I treated innocent >people that way, it would be wrong. Users who bought Apple systems a while back ARE innocent (surely you don't expect them to have predicted the future). You are treating innocent people that way and it is wrong. >However, treating aggressors this way is justified and necessary. Not if you are hurting innocent people in the process. Find other ways to do what you want (I think this one is doing you more harm than good). -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI sharkey!b-tech!zeeff
jeffrey@algor2.UUCP (Jeffrey Kegler) (06/07/89)
In article <8906021909.AA00268@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >I agree that my stubborn refusal to cooperate with a project, such as >porting GCC to AU/X, is a form of hostilities. And about time, too. I decided to boycott Apple when they sued Steve Jobs. I told nobody and assumed my endeavor was doomed to futility, but it definitely made me feel better. Buying from Apple is trading with the enemy. I could not stand reading about what Apple is doing, and knowing I had helped, even in a tiny way. I do not mean a personal criticism of any person owning Apple equipment, or working for Apple. You trade with the enemy in cases of dire necessity, or if you don't see them as the enemy. Everyone knows there are those people who file meritless lawsuits in order to harass. Unfortunately, in order to allow truly wronged people to have their day in court, this is necessary. But we do not have to invite John Scully over for dinner. And we do not have to pay his lawyers with our money. No free speech issue is involved in excluding ads for Apple software, or anything else, from this newsgroup. Where someone controls a medium he has the right (and duty) to exercise judgement and taste in controlling what goes over it. The quality of that judgement and taste will vary, and errors are not only possible but probable, but that is a necessary evil. Suppose _National Review_ were forced to give equal time to socialism? Would that advance free speech? Free speech includes the right to establish your own forum of expression with other consenting people, excluding whatever in your own arbitrary judgement you feel does not belong. A person wanting to promote Apple software using GNU can easily feel this decision as hostile. That seems to be the intention and I heartily agree. People with entirely innocent and honorable intentions who have connections with Apple they cannot sever will be arbitrarily hurt, and I sympathize to a small extent. I am a lot more worried about what Apple is doing to the industry. Apple GNU users are free to start their own forum, though this will be difficult. They will certainly get no help from me, for what little that means. -- Jeffrey Kegler, President, Algorists, jeffrey@algor2.UU.NET or uunet!algor2!jeffrey 1762 Wainwright DR, Reston VA 22090
ckim@esunix.UUCP (Cheol Kim) (06/16/89)
In article <9412@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us>, zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) writes: > In article <8906021909.AA00268@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > > > >I agree that my stubborn refusal to cooperate with a project, such as > >porting GCC to AU/X, is a form of hostilities. If I treated innocent > >people that way, it would be wrong. > > Users who bought Apple systems a while back ARE innocent (surely you > don't expect them to have predicted the future). You are treating > innocent people that way and it is wrong. > > >However, treating aggressors this way is justified and necessary. > > Not if you are hurting innocent people in the process. Find other ways to > do what you want (I think this one is doing you more harm than good). > > > -- > Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us > Ann Arbor, MI sharkey!b-tech!zeeff I am not against socialism and think that it is a swell thing for many people on this very earth. However, considering social wellfare of people, especially those with Apple computers, one wonders whether everyone is entitled to everything. Apple users did not have GNU C to start with. Just because they don't get this utility, it does not mean GNU is out to hurt anyone. It is a socialistic idea that such effort of GNU is harmful. In fact, GNU is trying to stand for what it initially desired to do so. Do I see the same scenario as that movie, "Tucker"? In fact, I see Gnu's effort and the whole project as a club of some sort. These are the people who like to pursue betterment of life thru sharing ideas and all. I am getting corny. By now, you may get a few hints that I fully and whole-heartedly support GNU's efforts. You bet your life saver. cheol "It is all religion and someone will write your epitaph you don't mean."