rms@AI.MIT.EDU (05/31/89)
The GNU mailing lists are not an open forum for all purposes. We set them up to promote free software and that is all they should be used for. Any other advertisements of proprietary software, or activities in support of monopolies on software, is also misuse of the list. We certainly would take steps to prevent persistent, deliberate misuse. Whether we decide to permit hostile commercial activities to use our mailing lists has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means the freedom to address the public with the assistance of such people as wish to help. Apple can do this no matter what I say or do. They have the money to place ads in dozens of magazines every week. However, Apple's freedom of speech does not mean we are obligated to republish whatever Apple wants to say. FSF is not obligated to lend its mailing lists to hostile purposes. Likewise, Apple isn't obligated by our freedom of speech to publish our criticism of Apple in the publications they give their customers (and they surely would not). I am not considering adopting policies like those of Apple. I don't think we should block messages which merely criticize us, like Berry's latest message. I am considering blocking messages which actually try to block our work, such as his previous message. I haven't decided yet what to do. My first attempt to fight back was by reminding all of you of the harm that Apple was trying to do, hoping that this would make up for whatever Apple gained by misusing the list. But if people did show Berry their hostility, they didn't tell the list, and it didn't discourage him. So I must now look for a different way to fight back. The decision may be affected by what you people think. However, if you wish to argue against monitoring, you should use arguments other than "Apple's freedom of speech", since (as explained above) I think that is not valid. However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do wish to hear from you. Even though I think you are mistaken, I still want to know how many of you there are. Likewise, if you disapprove more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from you.
grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu (Dirk Grunwald) (05/31/89)
I think that the efforts of FSF would be best served by supporting the AUX version of gcc. My reasoning is that e.g., a (good) C compiler on Apple would cost the equivilent apple compiler a significant market share; this hits a company like apple where it does the most -- in the wallet. Similarly, any FSF sets of tools which replace commerical apple functionality should be encouraged. Thus, using gcc to produce a good version of the X server for an Apple would be inline with that. However, this could make the apple more appealing to users; personally, I doubt it, since it's very over-priced. People wouldn't be buying an Apple because FSF tools worked on it, but they would use them & not buy the equivilent Apple tools. -- Dirk Grunwald Univ. of Illinois grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (05/31/89)
In article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >The GNU mailing lists are not an open forum for all purposes. Bullshit. >We set them up to promote free software and that is all they should be used >for. Any other advertisements of proprietary software, or activities >in support of monopolies on software, is also misuse of the list. We >certainly would take steps to prevent persistent, deliberate misuse. [... context removed in which it becomes clear that the author is talking abuot info-gcc ] First, financially I have as much right to use the info-gcc mailing list as you do. You simply don't have a leg to stand on, because you have no right of ownership on the mailing list in question. More to the point, if I post something to the netnews group gnu.gcc, and it gets cross posted to info-gcc (which I am doing right now), it is *your* fault, not mine. >However, Apple's freedom of speech does not mean we are obligated to >republish whatever Apple wants to say. If you were a publishing agency in the first place, this argument would have some merit. Since you aren't, it doesn't, and the group's interaction with public forums such as netnews renders the argument largely vacuous, even if you were a private publishing agency. My damn tax dollars payed for your machines at MIT. > FSF is not obligated to lend its mailing lists to hostile purposes. FSF doesn't own the mailing list. > >However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do >wish to hear from you. Even though I think you are mistaken, I still >want to know how many of you there are. Likewise, if you disapprove >more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from >you. I submit that you are exercising the same sort of fascism that Apple is. It isn't helpful to Apple, to David Berry, or to FSF. FSF gets a lot of rope on it's image as "the good guy" in this whole mess. This sort of crap, if it continues, may destroy that image, and it is particularly dangerous now that the media has caught on to FSF. Just think about it, and if you must make proprietary arguments about FSF, ground them in fact instead of fantasy. If you want to be fascist, that's up to you, but don't be fascist about things that *my* tax dollars are ultimately paying for. Jon
schmidt@ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt) (05/31/89)
In article <GRUNWALD.89May31000443@flute.cs.uiuc.edu> grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
++ My reasoning is that e.g., a (good) C compiler on Apple would cost the
++ equivilent apple compiler a significant market share; this hits a
++ company like apple where it does the most -- in the wallet.
It is in the long-term interests of GNU to keep as far away from Apple
software/hardware development as possible. If GNU software products
begin to seriously cut into Apple's bottom line guess who their
lawyers will come after next......?
Right. You guessed it.
``GREEDY EVIL CHUCKLE'' indeed.
Shame on you, Dave Berry.
Douglas C. Schmidt
--
On a clear day, under blue skies, there is no need to seek.
And asking about Buddha +------------------------+
Is like proclaiming innocence, | schmidt@ics.uci.edu |
With loot in your pocket. | office: (714) 856-4043 |tiemann@YAHI.STANFORD.EDU (Michael Tiemann) (05/31/89)
It is naive, if not selfish, to believe that FSF can further its goals by supporting, in any way, their software on machines built by companies such as Apple. The rationalizations given are shallow, and are very much like the ones given as to why the U.S. should continue to do business with South Africa: while we pour millions of dollars into the pockets of Pretoria, buying diamonds or selling weapons for the purposes of "maintaining influence", we enrich and reward the perpetrators of evil, which only gives them more power to brutalize and exploit the people we claim are being helped by our policies. By supporting GCC on A/UX, we only empower the people who would seek to destroy us. There may be gains which can be seen by microscope, but pull yourself away from the microscope! If we sit there, trying to determine if GCC on A/UX has cost Apple $1000 or $10,000 in lost compiler revenue, they are building a legal jail around us. If we don't look up soon, they will complete that jail, free software will be illegal, and years of hard work and all hopes that sparked it will be locked up forever. In the case of Apple, compromise carries a far greater cost than any benefit it can deliver. Michael
grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu (Dirk Grunwald) (05/31/89)
Several people pointed out that AUX doesn't charge extra for compilers -- I had assumed that they were like XENIX & some other UNIX machines where you had to buy a ``software development'' package to get a compiler. If it's not the case that FSF products compete directly with priced Apple products, then no, little effort should be put into maintaining Apple compatibility. However, on the same foot, should IBM products be support? They've engaged in dubious pricing practices in the past, although that's largely behind them now. And DEC has been suing anyone who builds BI-bus hardware and third-party disk and memory makers. What's the criteria to be used. -- Dirk Grunwald Univ. of Illinois grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu
pierson@xenna (Dan Pierson) (05/31/89)
In article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>, rms@AI writes: >However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do >wish to hear from you. Even though I think you are mistaken, I still >want to know how many of you there are. Likewise, if you disapprove >more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from >you. I strongly disapprove of look-and-feel copyright claims and lawsuits. Partly because of this my next personal machine will not be a Mac and I will buy no Apple, Lotus, or Ashton-Tate products as long as these companies engage in look-and-feel suits. I realize that use of gnu.* newsgroups (and hence info-gnu* mailing lists) to promote uses and ports of FSF software that you disapprove of must be extremely distasteful to you. However, I also feel that your threatened actions look, feel, and smell like censorship. Such actions will significantly lower my (and, I believe, other's) opinion of FSF. The ends do not justify the means. -- dan In real life: Dan Pierson, Encore Computer Corporation, Research UUCP: {talcott,linus,necis,decvax}!encore!pierson Internet: pierson@encore.com
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (06/01/89)
I'm curious. Is anyone who posts from a company site assumed to be posting their message: (1) with the official sanction of the company, (2) to help the company, (3) and as a representative of the company? +---------------------------+------------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "VMS Forever!" | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | +---------------------------+------------------------+
stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) (06/01/89)
I agree that Apple's attempt to legitimize "look and feel" as a basis for copyright infringement is self-serving and if successful would stifle much of the software industry, as well as the FSF. However, I think you are getting overly upset about Berry's port of GCC to A/UX, and that you are unfairly trying to make Berry take the heat for a corporate decision that he did not make. In particular, you seem to think that you can stifle porting of GNU software to A/UX. The cat's out of the bag, so to speak. There are too many ways to get GNU software for free, and your redistribution policies are explicitly designed to prevent limited distribution and use of GNU software. You have chosen not to support porting of GNU software to Apple hardware, but there is also little you can do to prevent other people from doing the support themselves. The most you can do is to complain about Apple's policies and urge people to boycott Apple. I suppose you could also change your licensing policies to prohibit distribution of GNU software to Apple products and take legal action against violators of the modified license, but that seems almost as insane as the Apple action itself. You also seem to confuse Berry's speech and actions with Apple's speech and actions. It seems that one of the best ways to prevent Apple from going through with their lawsuit would be to convince Apple employees of the folly of this lawsuit by demonstrating the advantages of free software and of the silliness of "look and feel" quibbles. You may continue to deny official support of Apple products, but to heap criticism on Apple employees who recognize the value of free software and who would be more likely to criticize Apple's efforts to restrict it seems counterproductive. Apple is not an organization of faceless clones, and I think you should recognize that its individual employees need not support all the goals of their organization and can be an effective force for change. Obviously, there is a conflict with the ideal of completely free software in a world where people may take advantage of it by using it to enhance their own profits. It's also possible that David Berry is supporting Apple by his actions, maybe not even unwittingly. However, I think you're trying to fight back against the wrong person. You really should be going after Apple's corporate leadership, the people responsible for their "look and feel" lawsuit in the first place. You want to penalize Apple employees and owners of Apple equipment, but they are not necessarily all people who support the Apple lawsuit. You should work against only the people who actually do support the lawsuit, and not a stereotyped group that you _think_ all support the lawsuit. Continue to boycott Apple in your organization, and continue to urge others to do so as well. However, I'm concerned that the means that you may use to fight Apple beyond those could compromise the ideals of your organization and damage it as much as the Apple lawsuit could. -- Steve VanDevender stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu "Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population. Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."
brooks@vette.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) (06/01/89)
In article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >The GNU mailing lists are not an open forum for all purposes. We set >them up to promote free software and that is all they should be used >for. Any other advertisements of proprietary software, or activities >in support of monopolies on software, is also misuse of the list. We >certainly would take steps to prevent persistent, deliberate misuse. Dammit, I have had it with this political crap on the info-gcc list. I suggest the following. If anyone decides that a specific message which appears on the list is not desired, that he quietly RETURN said message to the sender instead of adding another message to the list to further increase the political load on the list. If a message on the list is truely undesired by a large number of people then I presume the thousands of bounced messages filling up the senders mailbox will make the point. I am not suggesting any sort of unreasonable harassing or censorship, simply that unwanted messages be returned to the sender by the entire population of people who get them and do not want them. brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp
mac@mrk.ardent.com (Michael McNamara) (06/01/89)
I believe that gcc on the apple products is a valid way to show apple the errors of their ways. (or at least show apples customers...) I recall an interview with sun compiler people who were getting quite discouraged that their compiler group, with all sorts of wonderful credentials (ex Cray Research people, for example) could not build a compiler that would generate code for their own proprietary machine even nearly as good as that a free compiler (gcc) could. They dispaired of keeping up with gcc. Apple could also be put to shame in this manner. Consider the fictional situation: Version 8.0 of the Mac OS is too large for the Apple native C compiler to handle. Hence they use a cross compiler on their mainframe. The created MacOs object seriously impair's the Mac's run time performance do to poor code quality in the cross compiled object. At the same time, gcc as ported to the Mac handles the code easily, and generates an object half the size with much better code quality and runtime performance. It will take time, but slowly the companies management will discover that the goose that lays the golden egg (gcc) the only c compiler that they can use to release their software, is also the one objecting to the compaines fasicst copyright lawsuits.... Now I personally think gcc is a wonderful concept. There are thousands of competant programmers out their quite willing to spend a few hours making their own life easier. Gcc provides a forum for these programmers to improve not just their own world, but also many others, via sharing their efforts on gcc. Re Mr. Berry's annoucement of distribution availability of gcc ported to A/UX: Persons holding to strong Principles are judged by how strongly the adhere to their announced Principles. The more divergent those Principles are from those of the main stream, the more harshly the world will judge those who claim those Principles, yet diverge from them. RMS has started a mini-revolution in software creation and shareing. Evidenced by the popular support to the recent protest at Lotus, this revolution is gaining momentum. The basic tenant of the FSF seems to me to be the joint creation and shareing of quality software for execution on all computers. As this is a radical concept, albeit one that is rapidly gaining support, (dist-18.54/etc/MACHINES is over 500 lines long) there will certainly be some malcontent companies, who will buck the trend. Certainly Berry will find a distribution channel for his free software to current owners & users of the macintosh. Good quality free software finds it's way to users, especialy software derived from the FSF. Would it not perhaps be better to use this distribution of free software as a vector to carry the Manifesto to those souls who while currently using (the devils tools...:-) may be poor naive peasents, that only need to be shown the way to the great true guiding light of the FSF? Remember: a company is completely at the mercy of only one Person: The Customer. If the Customer says no, the company files chapter 11. Your message should be directed to the current customers of apple. _________________ Michael McNamara mac@ardent.com
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) (06/01/89)
>However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do >wish to hear from you. I'm seeing this information via the GNU Usenet groups. There may be a cultural difference between mailing lists and newsgroups. There have always been a number of limited-membership mailing lists. I can think of reasons to challenge the propriety of such things, but in practice mailing lists are easy enough to create in private that any regulations involving them are probably unenforcable. Usenet is however a more public activity, and tends to have a few standards. One of them is not appropriate to discriminate against particular authors or messages based on religious, political, or other views. In my opinion, newsgroups that discriminate against certain postings because they describe actions of which the moderator disapproves would be a violation of this tradition. There are also possible questions about use of University, State, and Federal resources -- and certainly such resources are being used in propagating newsgroups. I think the GNU project is justified in limiting use of its mailing list as it likes. However I would have qualms about continued access to Usenet for these groups if there is any control on the basis of the authors' politics. Charles Hedrick Associate Director Center for Computer and Information Services Rutgers University
bob@monster.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (06/01/89)
In article <May.31.19.04.58.1989.5106@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
I'm seeing this information via the GNU Usenet groups. There may
be a cultural difference between mailing lists and newsgroups.
...I think the GNU project is justified in limiting use of its
mailing list as it likes. However I would have qualms about
continued access to Usenet for these groups if there is any control
on the basis of the authors' politics.
The gnu.* news distribution is not a part of Usenet - it only uses the
same transport mechanisms. Sites that receive it do so because they
specifically asked for it, in the grand tradition of "you want it, you
arrange to get it". That's why every article that's gatewayed from
the mailing lists carries the header "Organization: GNU's Not Usenet"
as a reminder. GNU is its own alternative news heirarchy, not subject
to the same conventions as the Usenet in the same way that bionet or
alt aren't subject to the same conventions.
gnu.* was created last May 1 to provide freer, lower-overhead access
to the technical discussion forums sponsored by the Free Software
Foundation, and in this sense it succeeded wildly. The monthly
propagation statistics show that over two thirds of the gnu.*
newsgroups are available on over two thirds of the machines that also
carry Usenet. Many individuals and organizations have unsubscribed
from the mailing lists because of the increased convenience and
reduced system load of propagating and reading gnu.* via the news
mechanisms rather than via the mail mechanisms.
While disagreements occasionally happened on the mailing lists, it was
much more apparent to the participants that the lists were part of
someone else's facility, and others were taking advantage of their
hospitality. The newsgroups, however, loose people from those roots,
and they feel much freer to abuse the medium - even so far as to
maintain that FSF has no claim to the newsgroups or word to say about
their intended content. This was certainly not the intent when they
were created, and is still not the case.
It's a cultural misunderstanding, accentuated by the characters of the
two media: public vs private. The problem is, the two cultures aren't
mixing well because some folks came in late and don't understand the
arrangement.
Please, folks, remember that the gnu.* newsgroups are really just a
cheaper way to transport, and an easier way to read FSF's mailing
lists. They exist for the same purpose as the lists, because they are
essentially the same thing as the lists except for the transport
mechanism. They aren't the same as the other newsgroups; they just
look that way from where you'e sitting. FSF has every right to
restrict the distribution of (what used to be) their own, internal,
private developers' mailing lists. Please don't force them to
exercise that prerogative! It would be a real shame to declare gnu.*
a failed experiment after 13 months of such apparent success, and
dismantle the apparatus.
Please keep gnu.gcc/info-gcc focused on the technical issues of the
compiler; and similarly with the other newsgroups and mailing lists.rajeevc@mipos2.intel.com (rajeev chandrasekhar~) (06/01/89)
In article <9599@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: >In article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > >Bullshit. > >First, financially I have as much right to use the info-gcc mailing >list as you do. You simply don't have a leg to stand on, because you >have no right of ownership on the mailing list in question. >If you were a publishing agency in the first place, this argument >would have some merit. Since you aren't, it doesn't, and the group's >interaction with public forums such as netnews renders the argument >largely vacuous, even if you were a private publishing agency. > >My damn tax dollars payed for your machines at MIT. Bullshit... >FSF doesn't own the mailing list. >I submit that you are exercising the same sort of fascism that Apple >is. It isn't helpful to Apple, to David Berry, or to FSF. >FSF gets a lot of rope on it's image as "the good guy" in this whole >mess. This sort of crap, if it continues, may destroy that image, and >it is particularly dangerous now that the media has caught on to FSF. >Jon I agree with some of the things you say like Berry should be allowed to say his piece etc.. but i think you fool yourself if you think you had anything ( "your damn tax dollars" or not...) to do with the achievements of the FSF... or that you can in some misguided fantasy-trip of yours take some of the credit...No way, Pal.... As far as I am concerned FSF is still the "good guy" in this fight .. ( note that I call it a fight , you call it a mess :-) ) and the way I see it its a fight between two philosophies and not Berry vs FSF or Jon"Taxpaying"Shapiro and me etc... Rajeev Rajeev Chandrasekhar Intel Corp >> theres someone in my head, and its not me << 2625, Walsh Ave MS SC4-59 (408) 765-4632 Santa Clara, CA 95051 {hplabs,oliveb}!intelca!mipos2!rajeevc
bob+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bob Sidebotham) (06/01/89)
> Excerpts from ext.nn.gnu.gcc: 31-May-89 info-gcc is not a common ca.. > Michael Tiemann@YAHI.STA (1216) > It is naive, if not selfish, to believe that FSF can further its goals > by supporting, in any way, their software on machines built by > companies such as Apple. The rationalizations given are shallow, and > are very much like the ones given as to why the U.S. should continue > to do business with South Africa: while we pour millions of dollars > into the pockets of Pretoria, buying diamonds or selling weapons for > the purposes of "maintaining influence", we enrich and reward the > perpetrators of evil, which only gives them more power to brutalize > and exploit the people we claim are being helped by our policies. This is getting ridiculous. Apple is not a racist government grinding the majority black population into the dirt; it does not practice torture--it's simply a company that has made a tremendous success of some very innovative software, trying to keep one step ahead, by methods which may be offensive to some. But I, for one, will be not be happy if Apple goes under. My wife--who is not a computer hacker--uses an Apple computer for her very small desktop publishing business. We appreciate that the Macintosh has provided her with a wonderful environment for doing this work, and that the work she does benefits our community (she does break-even work for a number of community organizations). RMS's work is valuable--but it doesn't replace the immense amount of work Apple and various other companies (such as Letraset, Adboe, Borland) have put into providing an integrated environment that my wife can use (she doesn't want or need Unix--or Gcc, for that matter). If Apple is the enemy of anything, it's the enemy of unimaginative software. It's the enemy of DOS commands and Unix shell's, and line editors, and, ... The world is undeniably better off since Apple's introduction of the Mac in 1984. For this *I* am, at least a little bit, grateful. Bob Sidebotham
lewie@pur-ee.UUCP (Jeff Lewis) (06/02/89)
> As far as I am concerned FSF is still the "good guy" in > this fight .. ( note that I call it a fight , you call it > a mess :-) ) and the way I see it its a fight between two > philosophies and not Berry vs FSF or Jon"Taxpaying"Shapiro and me etc... Well, for what it's worth: I think there's more to it than just two opposing philosophies. In fact, I would guess that the majority of people hold views that differ from both Apple's corporate philosophy and Richard Stallman's philosophy. The way it looks from here is that most people either don't care, or are caught in a bind by the political aggrandizing of both Apple and RMS. Just something to think about: If the purpose of the GNU project is as a political weapon, then its software ceases to be what it claims to be - free. -- Jeff Lewis (lewie@ee.ecn.purdue.edu) Purdue University Robot Vision Lab
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (06/02/89)
In article <7405@xenna.Encore.COM>, pierson@xenna (Dan Pierson) writes: >I strongly disapprove of look-and-feel copyright claims and lawsuits. >Partly because of this my next personal machine will not be a Mac and >I will buy no Apple, Lotus, or Ashton-Tate products as long as these >companies engage in look-and-feel suits. Could someone post (or email me) a complete list of Apple, Lotus, and Ashton-Tate products? Thanks, --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (06/02/89)
In article <3224@cps3xx.UUCP>, usenet@cps3xx (Usenet file owner) writes: >I'm curious. Is anyone who posts from a company site assumed to be >posting their message: > (1) with the official sanction of the company, > (2) to help the company, > (3) and as a representative of the company? Actually, according to the newusers docs, the exact opposite is true; unless you state otherwise, you are only speaking for yourself. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) (06/03/89)
My feelings on this are simple. I do not believe announcing a freely available port to a given workstation environment (A/UX) is either "hostile commercial activity" or "in support of monopolies on software", simply because the work was done by an Apple employee. In fact, showing him hostility seems counter-productive to the goal of encouraging free software. Remember that ALL computers and operating systems are are "proprietary platforms". UNIX's "portability" is a myth that ranks right up there with Apple's "user-friendliness". ======================================================================== Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" University of Colorado fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)492-8136 or 444-3168
rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) (06/04/89)
Recently, Michael Tiemann wrote: > If we sit there, trying > to determine if GCC on A/UX has cost Apple $1000 or $10,000 in lost > compiler revenue, they are building a legal jail around us. If we > don't look up soon, they will complete that jail, free software will > be illegal, and years of hard work and all hopes that sparked it will > be locked up forever. Michael makes the point quite vividly. I'm sure that (almost) everyone reading these postings agrees that it would be a horrible outcome if free software became illegal. The current brouhaha about the A/UX port of GCC (and the postings regarding same) have raised a (legitimate) question about the tactics used to fight against such an outcome. Since the subject has already been breached, I would like to interject some related (but different and perhaps even new) questions about tactics. First, I'd like to know if all this fuss is really even warranted? Isn't it possible that Apple, Lotus, and Ashton-tate will simply lose their respective "look-and-feel" suits (and thus have to bear at least their own court costs and lawyer's fees, and maybe even those of the defendants)? Wouldn't this alone be the best and most powerful dis-incentive for anybody trying this kind of a suit again? After all, if you've got precedent going against you, and if you may have to pay for the trouble you stir up (out of your own corporate pocket) you'll probably think twice before knocking over that beehive just to get a shot at the honey. If all three of these companies were to lose their suits, I think that "look-and-feel" would quickly begin to fade from our collective memories. After a year or two, it would simply be remembered as a bad joke. So perhaps FSF should be asking for donations for the "defense legal fund" which would be given to the defendants in these cases so that they could afford to hire the *best* lawyers (and more of them). Beyond this (perhaps crazy) suggestion, there is the larger question of how to permanently insure (regardless of the outcome of the current suits) that such suits are never brought again against anybody. This is the "war" of which the current fights against Apple, Lotus, and Ashton-Tate are only minor "battles". How can we win the war? Is new legislation needed? If so, would it necessarily be at the federal level (I guess). How could we get the ball rolling for such legislation? I am very naive about such things. rms? Care to respond? // Ron Guilmette - MCC - Experimental Systems Kit Project // 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759 - (512)338-3740 // ARPA: rfg@mcc.com // UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (06/05/89)
>However, on the same foot, should IBM products be support? They've engaged in >dubious pricing practices in the past, although that's largely behind them now. >And DEC has been suing anyone who builds BI-bus hardware and third-party disk >and memory makers. What's the criteria to be used. This is what concerns me. It seems to be a personal decision by RMS. Who wants to support FSF when they might quit supporting your machine at any time? ALL companies have done things that are contrary to the goals of FSF. Don't ruin FSF in the process of trying to save it. -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI sharkey!b-tech!zeeff
rbj@DSYS.NCSL.NIST.GOV (Root Boy Jim) (06/06/89)
? From: rms@ai.mit.edu ? The GNU mailing lists are not an open forum for all purposes. We set ? them up to promote free software and that is all they should be used ? for. Any other advertisements of proprietary software, or activities ? in support of monopolies on software, is also misuse of the list. We ? certainly would take steps to prevent persistent, deliberate misuse. Agreed. This newgroup/mailing list exists for a specific purpose. Like all other distributions, people may only post material relevant to the subject matter. Some groups are moderated to ensure this purpose. However, in practice, the discussion in unmoderated groups tends to wander off the mark a bit. When the discussion wanders too far, usually people will start taking steps to bring the discussion back on track. This can be thought of as A Good Thing. It is easy to delete articles that are not of interest, and the static categorys don't always match the dynamic shift in topics. ? Whether we decide to permit hostile commercial activities to use our ? mailing lists has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Freedom of ? speech means the freedom to address the public with the assistance of ? such people as wish to help. Apple can do this no matter what I say ? or do. They have the money to place ads in dozens of magazines every ? week. Also agreed. Corporate products should be advertised by paying for it. ? However, Apple's freedom of speech does not mean we are obligated to ? republish whatever Apple wants to say. FSF is not obligated to lend ? its mailing lists to hostile purposes. Likewise, Apple isn't ? obligated by our freedom of speech to publish our criticism of Apple ? in the publications they give their customers (and they surely would ? not). However, like all areas, this one has started to become grey. We must make a distinction between Apple the corporation, and employees of Apple. If an Apple employee wants to hack GCC or any other GNUware to run on his box, he should be free to do do. He should also be free to post the fact that he did, announce the availability in this newsgroup, along with info on where to get it, *as long as he obeys the GNU distribution license*. He should expect no help from us; we have decided not to support it for the reasons RMS has stated. Yet, we should not seriously hamper non-commercial efforts even tho they may be related to a product we consider ungroovy. Note that I don't even care whether he did it on his own time or whether Apple paid for it. In some respects, the latter is preferable. ? I am not considering adopting policies like those of Apple. I don't ? think we should block messages which merely criticize us, like Berry's ? latest message. I am considering blocking messages which actually try ? to block our work, such as his previous message. This is laudable. We are not perfect, and we must take our lumps. Constructive criticism is welcome. But it must not cross the line where it degenerates into name-calling or becomes destructive. ? I haven't decided yet what to do. My first attempt to fight back was ? by reminding all of you of the harm that Apple was trying to do, ? hoping that this would make up for whatever Apple gained by misusing ? the list. But if people did show Berry their hostility, they didn't ? tell the list, and it didn't discourage him. So I must now look for ? a different way to fight back. Well, maybe. Perhaps the list *should* temporarily or permanently be moderated. You must weigh the advantages against the time and effort required to do so. ? The decision may be affected by what you people think. However, if ? you wish to argue against monitoring, you should use arguments other ? than "Apple's freedom of speech", since (as explained above) I think ? that is not valid. Agreed. However, a key phrase in that last paragraph is `what people think.' We are getting dangerously close to pissing off some of our best champions. Gene Spafford has done a great service by using GCC to compile his Purdue speedups in X. Probably shaken out a few bugs too. One of his stated concerns is that he may have to give away code he ran thru your compiler, of if he used your librarys. I am confused as to whether this is truly a requirement. If it is, I am against it because I am against corporations placing restrictions on code compiled with their compiler or linked with their librarys. Fortunately, AT&T has allowed the use of their binary library code. I urge you to do the same, perhaps with the restriction that if library routines are used, that the entire library and the compiler must be provided in source form. Other than that, I see the code as a completely separate work, with the author free to place his own restrictions on it. That way, the compiler, librarys, and philosophy will be propagated, and will reach new people, who may jump on the bandwagon. ? However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do ? wish to hear from you. Even though I think you are mistaken, I still ? want to know how many of you there are. Likewise, if you disapprove ? more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from ? you. By now, I have seen so many flames I have lost track of the original postings and responses. I can only offer one piece of advice: don't descend to their level. You (RMS) must be seen to be above it. Your greatest strength is the fact that you are a wizard hacker, and the purity of your position. You may call for boycotts, but you must not let yourself be goaded into actions that will make you look petty. You have set the ground rules for your cornor of the universe. Other people have set their own, more restrictive rules. You are offering us the chance to play a game with different and better rules. For that, we love and admire you. Please do not succumb to paranoia. I can see little that people can do to actively impede our work. A commercial posting here, a flame there, do not really matter all that much. All that is required is a gentle reminder that certain actions are inappropriate. Don't spend too much time defending your position, it takes away from your work. Root Boy Jim is what I am Are you what you are or what?
lance@kodak.UUCP (Dan Lance) (06/07/89)
In article <9170@boulder.Colorado.EDU> fozzard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Richard Fozzard) writes: >My feelings on this are simple. I do not believe announcing a freely >available port to a given workstation environment (A/UX) is either >"hostile commercial activity" or "in support of monopolies on software", >simply because the work was done by an Apple employee. This is probably true enough. >In fact, showing >him hostility seems counter-productive to the goal of encouraging >free software. It certainly hurts Mac II users. That's the whole point -- Apple conducts business in an anti-social manner. Its customers (and developers) *should* be excluded from the free software community. If those people want to participate in the GNU project, they should vote with their wallets or feet and buy from or work for other vendors who do business in a more acceptable manner. Of course, no one can prevent ports of GNU software to Apple platforms; however, RMS is well within his rights in excluding Apple products from the list of offically supported platforms, and refusing to put Apple support code in his distributions. More power to him. >Remember that ALL computers and operating systems are >are "proprietary platforms". Bull-hockey. Nowhere does the law say that a computer's architecture or OS must be a proprietary product. Most of today's available machines and OSes are proprietary. GNU will not be, and I hope someone will design a machine using off-the-shelf parts and industry standards to run it -- and then license the plans using a GNU-like license. That way people can buy the parts and build it themselves, making changes to the hardware if they so desire. >UNIX's "portability" is a myth that ranks >right up there with Apple's "user-friendliness". More bull-hockey. Why can't you run VMS or VM/CMS or the Mac OS on your Prime or Sequent or Cray? Simple. They were written for one architecture and can't be ported without a complete rewrite. It is much easier, though not trivial, to port Un*x to a new architecture. >======================================================================== >Richard Fozzard "Serendipity empowers" >University of Colorado >fozzard@boulder.colorado.edu (303)492-8136 or 444-3168 --drl Daniel R. Lance / drl@kodak.com "Stupidity cripples"