jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) (03/22/89)
I couldn't figure out where to post this so pardon me for posting it here. FLAME ON. I think it is bullshit that just because Stallman has a bug up his ass about Apple's corporate policies and actions that the GNU project will have nothing to do with A/UX. I was going to port over gdb, but fuck it if the GNU-nixs won't put my changes back into the offical GNU source. We already have most of GNU ported but met with closed minds and petty bullshit when we tried to get our changes rolled back into the offical sources. We are just hard working software jocks like the rest of you and want the stuff we do to be used and appreciated like you do. It's bullshit to ignore and piss off us poor software peons just because you do not like Apple's corporate policy. It is self-defeating towards the goals that GNU is pursuing, and if you think that ignoring/rejecting us is somehow going to cause Apple to change its corporate policies you are living in a fantasyland. So I guess GNU is freeware/copyleft/etc/etc as long as we all do what Stallman or the GNU-nixs want. Great attitude. FLAME OFF. Is there anyone else out there that has met with a brick wall when trying to get changes for a particular architecture rolled back into some piece of GNU? Is there more to GNU's hatred of Apple than some misguided philisophical beliefs? Am I wrong to feel this way? ---The above commentary is the opinion of John Kullmann. It was made on my own time without the knowledge or sanction of Apple Computer. -------------------- ------------------- John Kullmann "All opinions and comments are mine alone" A/UX Technical Mgr ..!apple!jk jk@apple.com Voice: 408-973-2939
ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) (03/22/89)
In article <27674@apple.Apple.COM> jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: >I couldn't figure out where to post this so pardon me for posting it here. > >FLAME ON. >I think it is bullshit that just because Stallman has a bug up his ass about ^^^^^^^^ ^^^ >Apple's corporate policies and actions that the GNU project >will have nothing to do with A/UX. > >I was going to port over gdb, but fuck it if the GNU-nixs won't ^^^^ Perhaps we could start with the fact that you people seem to have a little problem with net.manners, not to mention taste... > It's bullshit to ignore and piss off us poor >software peons just because you do not like Apple's corporate policy. It >is self-defeating towards the goals that GNU is pursuing, and if you think >that ignoring/rejecting us is somehow going to cause Apple to change its >corporate policies you are living in a fantasyland. First off...you AREN'T just a 'poor software peon'. As Tech.Mangr., you are (at least from the outside looking in) the main line of Apples corporate policy. No...I doubt that any action by FSF is going to change Apple policy. That, of course, is the really sad part. Certainly, Apple has proved their lack of regard *US* software peons in the trans-Apple world. Note the price hikes, dictatorial lawsuits, etc. I am not in a position to speak authoritatively for anyone but myself, but within the somewhat fanciful guidlines (I do like most of his ideas, though), non-support of Apple products is CERTAINLY in line with the FSFs world-view. Note also that there are many, many equally futile protests that go on every day...many of them garnering great respect. > >So I guess GNU is freeware/copyleft/etc/etc as long as we all do what Stallman >or the GNU-nixs want. Great attitude. >FLAME OFF. > Perhaps...but then you are more than free to hack the stuff all you want. FSF just doesn't want it. >Is there anyone else out there that has met with a brick wall when trying to >get changes for a particular architecture rolled back into some piece of >GNU? No...there are no other companies that I know of that have earned proscription... >Is there more to GNU's hatred of Apple than some misguided philisophical >beliefs? Am I wrong to feel this way? > Misguided? In your humble opinion. There are quite a few who find these beliefs quite reasonable. You, of course, can feel anyway you want...there are a lot of people who would agree with your side also. >-------------------- ------------------- >John Kullmann "All opinions and comments are mine alone" >A/UX Technical Mgr ..!apple!jk jk@apple.com >Voice: 408-973-2939 Once upon a time, I thought about buying a Mac II A/UX machine. Then I used one. Okay, I said...it's version 1.0. Then I listened to the convo in comp.unix.aux...and YOU talk about "great attitude". Then FSF announced non-support. That was it. So you lost one little sale, partially because of the FSF (partially because of Apple). Perhaps a few thousand software peons like me WILL change Apples policy...but I don't see it... ...ken seefried iii ken@gatech.edu
chpf127@ut-emx.UUCP (chpf127) (03/22/89)
In article <27674@apple.Apple.COM>, jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: > I couldn't figure out where to post this so pardon me for posting it here. > > FLAME ON. > I think it is bullshit that just because Stallman has a bug up his ass > about Apple's corporate policies and actions that the GNU project will > have nothing to do with A/UX. [alotta lines of complaints about FSF deleted --- a bug up which ass?] IMHO: Most of the time you get what you pay for. Sometimes (like when you buy HW/SW from certain companies) you get a lot less. Once in a great while you get a lot more. > John Kullmann "All opinions and comments are mine alone" > A/UX Technical Mgr ..!apple!jk jk@apple.com > Voice: 408-973-2939 -- John Eaton chpf127@emx.cc.utexas.edu Department of Chemical Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (03/23/89)
You never know what convoluted results your actions are going to cause... A couple of days ago I responded (via email) to a message on the apple.general group from someone here who had been looking for gnuemacs? gcc? diffs or support for A/UX. I pointed out that they were most likely unavailable from FSF for obvious reasons, and that he should try comp.os.aux or whatever. I get the feeling that this letter of mine got forwarded around and eventually (with no feedback to me) resulted in the recent tirade. Anyway, if people from Apple would like to discuss this off-line without offending a lot of people, it should probably be done in apple.general or apple.aux. USENET isn't AppleLink - the public newsgroups get distributed to thousands of sites across the world. Peter Desnoyers
rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) (03/23/89)
Recently, apple!jk@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (John Kullmann) wrote: >I think it is bullshit that just because Stallman has a bug up his ass about >Apple's corporate policies and actions that the GNU project >will have nothing to do with A/UX. Do you want to know what I think? I think that it is bull**** that you somehow are under the delusion that Stallman *owes* you something, just because he is trying to be of some help to a lot of other programmers. As my father was fond of saying while I was growing up, "The world doesn't owe you a living, so you had better learn how to make one of your own." Likewise, Stallman doesn't owe you squat! Now this doesn't mean that he is holding you at gunpoint or anything. If you guys at Apple want to have a good ANSI C compiler (maybe even a free one) then you are perfectly free to go out and write one. The fact that you are now whining that you cannot have your (free) cake and eat it too is only a confirmation for all us GNU fans that Apple is arrogant. >I was going to port over gdb, but fuck it if the GNU-nixs won't >put my changes back into the offical GNU source. We already have most of GNU >ported but met with closed minds and petty bullshit when we tried to get our >changes rolled back into the offical sources. We are just hard working >software jocks like the rest of you and want the stuff we do to be used >and appreciated like you do. It's bullshit to ignore and piss off us poor >software peons just because you do not like Apple's corporate policy. It >is self-defeating towards the goals that GNU is pursuing, and if you think >that ignoring/rejecting us is somehow going to cause Apple to change its >corporate policies you are living in a fantasyland. What do you care whether FSF puts your changes back into the official version (and new releases)? Are you saying that you want to take advantage of all this great free FSF software, pay nothing, do nothing in return (like at least trying to change your company's attitudes), and that you still want the right to *demand* that FSF act as your own (*free*) distribution service? Now that is arrogance!! Look, if you want to have your patches distributed, why don't you just do what other people/companies are now doing... i.e. offer your patches via E-mail, anonymous FTP, or UUCP, on this newsgroup. If that is good enough for the people at DataGeneral why isn't it good enough for you? Now you are demanding not only equal treatment (even thought Apple may have some s*itty policies) but actually *better* treatement! More amazing arrogance! >So I guess GNU is freeware/copyleft/etc/etc as long as we all do what Stallman >or the GNU-nixs want. Great attitude. Maybe you do have to do what Stallman demands if you want to use FSF as your own private distribution service (and pay noting for the privledge). Then again, maybe you don't. That's really not the point right now, because there is no evidence in your flamage that you have even *tried* to make *any* effort to protest Apple's policies within your own company. If you want to talk about great attitudes, lets talk about your's. Your signature line says that you are a technical manager at Apple (not a peon as you claim). If you are a manager, then it seems that you should, at the very least, be able (even if not willing) to bring up the subject of Apple's litigation policies in discussions with (at least) the second level manager(s) directly above you. Have you done that? Have you done anything other than complain that Stallman is a bad boy because he doesn't play by *your* rules and distribute *your* software for *you* for *free* ??? If you had come to Stallman (or posted to this newsgroup/mailing-list) and said "Look everybody... I have tried... I have made an honest effort to wake up the people at Apple, and to alert them that what they have been doing with their litigation is wrong... but I have failed to get agreement". Well, if you had done that, you might get some sympathy (although you might still not get the free re-distribution service you want). As it is however, we have no evidence that either (a) you even agree that what Apple has done is wrong, or (b) that you have done anything to protest these actions within Apple. >Is there anyone else out there that has met with a brick wall when trying to >get changes for a particular architecture rolled back into some piece of >GNU? Yes. There are lots of people/companies, many of whom even play by Stallman's rules (most of the time) who still have trouble getting all of their own private patches folded back in to (future) official releases. Stallman is funny that way. He likes to excersize some personal and (very) knowledgeable quality-control over code with his name on it. ;-) Gee... I wonder why. :-) I've sent him lots of patches that he has thrown in the round file. Funny thing is that after looking at those same patches for awhile, I have generally realized that the ones he discarded were junk anyway. So Stallman acts as a big junk-patch filter... which is a damn good thing. Somebody has to do it. I only hope that whoever he gets to do it next does as good a job as he has. >Is there more to GNU's hatred of Apple than some misguided philisophical >beliefs? Am I wrong to feel this way? Nope. Just {well-}guided philisophical beliefs. ________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: My boss doesn't even know I'm at work, so how could he know about this! --------------------------------------------------------------- // Ron Guilmette - MCC - Experimental (parallel) 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
brooks@vette.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) (03/23/89)
In article <27674@apple.Apple.COM> jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: >I couldn't figure out where to post this so pardon me for posting it here. > >I was going to port over gdb, but fuck it if the GNU-nixs won't >put my changes back into the offical GNU source. We already have most of GNU I think that this a bit much.... The purpose of the copyleft if clear and Stallman is obviously being very careful to keep the source distributed by GNU clean with respect to the copyleft. This is sometimes inconvenient, but is needed if you want to make sure that a company can't degrade the freedom of the software. If companies like Apple don't want to cooperate with the copyleft they should not use the software. If some company decides to "challenge" the copyleft, my "legal defense fund" check to the GNU project is waiting to be signed. I am sure that many other users who have benefitted from the GNU project will feel the same way. brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp, .../uunet!maddog.llnl.gov!brooks
ag@cbmvax.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski) (03/25/89)
In article <27674@apple.Apple.COM> jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: >FLAME ON. >I think it is bullshit that just because Stallman has a bug up his ass about >Apple's corporate policies and actions that the GNU project >will have nothing to do with A/UX. Look who has a bug up his ass. Apple is 180 degrees away from what GNU is trying to do, so there is no reason to have anything to do with the A/UX project. Infact, there is darn good reason for avoiding it. After all, the only thing that could come of it is A/UX becoming a little more popular because GNU's work has been ported to it. >I was going to port over gdb, but fuck it if the GNU-nixs won't >put my changes back into the offical GNU source. You're free to distribute modified source code, provided the code you distribute is still freely distributable, on you're own time and money, you don't need FSF to spend its time and money to distribute the modifications. Possibly go the way of the `Apollo diffs'. >It's bullshit to ignore and piss off us poor >software peons just because you do not like Apple's corporate policy. It >is self-defeating towards the goals that GNU is pursuing, and if you think >that ignoring/rejecting us is somehow going to cause Apple to change its >corporate policies you are living in a fantasyland. What is problem with GNU sending out a message that they (we) are not gonna put up with Apple's bullshit? Well it's out and darn it if atleast one person at Apple didn't hear it. >So I guess GNU is freeware/copyleft/etc/etc as long as we all do what >Stallman or the GNU-nixs want. Great attitude. As was said, it still is free. You have the right to ditribute modified source code, but have no right to tell anybody else that they have to accept it. Pax, Keith BTW, these are my opinions. Commodore may not agree with them and I am damn sure they won't try to copyright them! What about Apple? -- This article is freely ditributable under the terms of the GNU License. Keith Gabryelski ag@cbmvax.commodore.com
scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (03/27/89)
In article <27674@apple.Apple.COM> jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: >I think it is bullshit that just because Stallman has a bug up his ass about >Apple's corporate policies and actions that the GNU project >will have nothing to do with A/UX. . . . > >[ and got lots of counterflames from lots of folks... ] Tho Kullman made his point in a rather execreble way (doesn't that sound better than "bullshit"? :-) ) it's still one we should consider. Apple has P-Oed rms, and in response he's refused to put AUX stuff into FSF software. I think this policy is misguided at best, and at worst is counter to the expressed philosophy of FSF as I understand it. If FSF wants to change Apples way of doing things, the *best* possible way is to make Apple dependant on free software. The *worst* possible way is to make free software completely irrelevant to them. The current policy penalizes all those Apple employees who might otherwise be a voice for FSF. FSF can be either a very large carrot or a very small stick. It has chosen the latter, which I feel is a mistake (no pun intended). As for counter to FSF philosophy: it appears that *every* hardware and operating system under which FSF software works is proprietary. It appears the vendors want to keep it that way. DEC, IBM, and others regularly sue over 'intellectual property' rights. What makes Apple particularly evil? Free software should be free. Its content should be determined by those willing to do the work, not by the political opinions of Stallman. Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
gjc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (George J. Carrette) (03/28/89)
The thing that makes Apple different is their "software look and feel" lawsuit. That sort of thing, if upheld, could make the distribution of free software a crime. Then under RICO an organization like FSF could be crushed very quickly as an organized-crime-foundation. I think it is funny that people at Apple are actually upset about the FSF position on this. -gjc
dboyes@titan.rice.edu (David Boyes) (03/28/89)
In article <878@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: > >Apple has P-Oed rms, and in response he's refused to put AUX stuff into >FSF software. I think this policy is misguided at best, and at worst is >counter to the expressed philosophy of FSF as I understand it. How? Apple has consistently acted in a fashion counter to the goals and ideals behind the GNU project. Why should RMS waste blodd and sweat over something that he has little or no control over and no indications that any changes are in the works? >If FSF wants to change Apples way of doing things, the *best* possible >way is to make Apple dependant on free software. I disagree. It didn't make any difference with the Apple II, because the Apple II was a totally open machine. People wrote neat things with it because they could look at how things were done and share that. The "new" post-Woz Apple has gotten awfully uppity -- especially about ideas they borrowed from others. > The *worst* possible >way is to make free software completely irrelevant to them. Not if all your competitors can supply superior software at low cost because they chose to be more sensible on corporate policy. Given the choice of a something like a Sun 3/50 or a DECstation 3100 or a Mac IIx running A/UX, I'm going to take the Sun or the DEC box because I can get superior versions of the C compiler and GNU Emacs for nothing. When the GNU kernel arrives, I'm going to buy something that can run it. I find Apple's attitude about source and this whole stupid "look and feel" thing unacceptable, and I refuse to allow them to get away with the kind of nonsense they're trying to pull. > The current >policy penalizes all those Apple employees who might otherwise be a voice >for FSF. Or galvanizes them to get up and demand that Apple act like a corporate adult and act for the good of the industry. It hasn't killed Sun to make NFS available to the world. If the Mac windowing system can't stand up to a little competition, than it's the Mac that needs to be improved. Squashing competition isn't going to fix the code. > DEC, IBM, and others regularly sue >over 'intellectual property' rights. What makes Apple particularly evil? Because DEC and IBM sue over substantial duplication of code or concept stemming from exposure to a product, not some nebulous appearance-oriented concept like "look and feel". If Apple's reasoning is correct, they (Apple) owe the workstation design group at Xerox PARC an abolutely staggering amount of royalty money. > Its content should be determined by those >willing to do the work, not by the political opinions of Stallman. It's Stallman's dream. He can run his show any way he wants to. Apple is perfectly free to start their own GNU-wannabe organization, but Stallman certainly doesn't have to support their legal machinations or their corporate policies. > Steve Simmons > scs@vax3.iti.org David Boyes / VM & Unix Systems Support / Rice University - ICSA dboyes@icsa.rice.edu (Internet) DBOYES@RICE (BITNET) | Historian [biggies]!rice!dboyes (UUCP) 713-527-4852 | At Large.. NOTE: Rice University doesn't always agree with everything I say.
scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (03/28/89)
In article <2963@kalliope.rice.edu> dboyes@titan.rice.edu (David Boyes) writes: [[a great deal of reasonable commentary in response to my posting. Rather than get into a long involved discussion, I'll clarify a few of my points and then step aside.]] >In article <878@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >>Apple has P-Oed rms, and in response he's refused to put AUX stuff into >>FSF software. I think this policy is misguided at best, and at worst is >>counter to the expressed philosophy of FSF as I understand it. > >How? Apple has consistently acted in a fashion counter to the >goals and ideals behind the GNU project. Why should RMS waste >blodd and sweat over something that he has little or no control >over and no indications that any changes are in the works? Two Points: first, the great bulk of "blood and sweat" would come from the Apple folks. RMS would act as a co-ordinator, just as he presently does for all the other ports of GNU software. Not to underestimate the amount of work he's doing! It continually amazes me. Second point: the complaint from the Apple person about the situation tells me that (a) Apple employees are aware of the problem, and (b) their response is *not* to change Apple's policy but rather to abandon FSF code. >> The *worst* possible >>way is to make free software completely irrelevant to them. > >Not if all your competitors can supply superior software at low >cost because they chose to be more sensible on corporate policy. >Given the choice of a something like a Sun 3/50 or a DECstation >3100 or a Mac IIx running A/UX, I'm going to take the Sun or the >DEC box because I can get superior versions of the C compiler and >GNU Emacs for nothing. Agreed. But Apple couldn't give a damn. What percentage of their sales are to software developers? Close to zero. I think a better tactic would be to get FSF s/w working under AUX, build some products with it, and let Apple see how faster/more portable software benefits them. Carrot, not stick. >> DEC, IBM, and others regularly sue >>over 'intellectual property' rights. What makes Apple particularly evil? > >Because DEC and IBM sue over substantial duplication of code or >concept stemming from exposure to a product, not some nebulous >appearance-oriented concept like "look and feel". If Apple's >reasoning is correct, they (Apple) owe the workstation design >group at Xerox PARC an abolutely staggering amount of royalty >money. Check your facts. Go examine closely what DEC has done to people over the BI bus, or IBM over the ROM bios. It's no less pernicious than Apple, and was considerably more successful from the sue-ers point of view. Note also that Apple *did* pay Xerox Parc an absolutely staggering amount of royalty money. A royalty on every Mac made until recently, when the licence was finally paid in full. [[nota bene: According to this week's PC Week, legal experts expect Apple to lose the suit. Not because "look and feel" is copyrightable, but because they don't have a good claim on inventing overlapping windows.]] >> Its content should be determined by those >>willing to do the work, not by the political opinions of Stallman. > >It's Stallman's dream. He can run his show any way he wants to. When he asks us to pitch in with help, money, and put our own work under the FSF copyleft it becomes a little bit more than just his show. He's definately the guiding light, but not the owner. >David Boyes / VM & Unix Systems Support / Rice University - ICSA >dboyes@icsa.rice.edu (Internet) DBOYES@RICE (BITNET) | Historian >[biggies]!rice!dboyes (UUCP) 713-527-4852 | At Large.. >NOTE: Rice University doesn't always agree with everything I say. Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us (Jon Zeeff) (03/28/89)
All companies (even GNU) protect their software to further their goals. I don't see Apple as being different from IBM, DEC, etc. >>willing to do the work, not by the political opinions of Stallman. > >It's Stallman's dream. He can run his show any way he wants to. If Stallman's dream is "free software as long as I like the company" instead of "free software", I think he should let us know. -- Jon Zeeff zeeff@b-tech.ann-arbor.mi.us Ann Arbor, MI mailrus!b-tech!zeeff
shebs@Apple.COM (Stanley Todd Shebs) (03/29/89)
In article <28988@bu-cs.BU.EDU> gjc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (George J. Carrette) writes: > >I think it is funny that people at Apple are actually upset about the FSF >position on this. First off, Apple is the second-largest anarchy in the world - it's just behind Beirut. Second, every Appleite considers her/himself a visionary; engineers, beancounters, managers, the janitorial staff. These two facts have many consequences. For instance, it is very hard to get any sort of agreement, and impossible to resolve major disputes, even if every level of management concurs on a position. If the company appears to act with any sort of unity, it's because most of the employees are behind the action (or in certain sensitive cases, a gag order has been imposed...). With respect to GNU, the only people at Apple who care are the handful of people doing A/UX development and another handful doing research. Although Apple seems to me to have supplanted IBM as the new "evil empire", they're also the biggest supporter of new (and open) research in the Valley right now, and with the current "C/C++ ueber alles" trend, us language researchers can't be too choosy about corporate purity... For myself, I understand the FSF position and basically support it, but am concerned that FSF's "small stick" is probably going to be less effective in the long run than would the "large carrot". stan shebs shebs@apple.com
chase@Ozona.orc.olivetti.com (David Chase) (03/29/89)
Stallman can do what he wants with the software, since he is the copyright holder, but ... In article <2963@kalliope.rice.edu> dboyes@titan.rice.edu (David Boyes) writes: >Not if all your competitors can supply superior software at low >cost because they chose to be more sensible on corporate policy. >Given the choice of a something like a Sun 3/50 or a DECstation >3100 or a Mac IIx running A/UX, "Superior software" is a matter of taste. I'd take the Mac IIx in a flash, and run the real (non-Unix) Macintosh code. What Apple wants to protect is those things that make that my choice -- clearly, this is something of value, and worth money to them. In this case, what matters is precisely the "look and feel". There isn't too much other software in this world that I like because of its "look and feel", and other windowing software has an inferior "look and feel". It's pretty nebulous, but it's what makes the Mac software special, and I can understand Apple trying to protect it. I think the "look and feel" argument has merit in this case, though I can easily imagine creative legal types using it in meritless situations ("they both read standard input, write to standard output, use command line flags, and compile C to assembly code; therefore, same look and feel!"). >It hasn't killed Sun to make NFS available to the world. This is a separate issue -- if you plan to sell anything with an 'N' (for "Network") in it, then you had better hope that it is widely used. Sun would have been stupid to do anything else. Ditto for the X Window System -- it's supposed to work transparently over a network, and so if it is to fly at all it must be easy for vendors to get their hands on it. >If the Mac windowing system can't stand up to a little competition, >than it's the Mac that needs to be improved. Squashing competition >isn't going to fix the code. On the contrary, the code is fine. Apple just wants to make (lots of) money on their investment and cleverness. If anything, the Macintosh is an example that non-free software (and the expectation of profits) can lead to interesting things. This doesn't mean that the Free Software approach is without merit, but so far what I have seen from them has been only "better than Unix"; none of it is anything like what I really *want* in a personal computer or workstation. The ball's in their court; they can certainly try to come up with something having look and feel superior to the Macintosh's. When they get it, then the FSF can defend the uniqueness of *their* look and feel, and require that any software using it be Free. It's a two-edged sword (just like copyright protection). David
chase@Ozona.orc.olivetti.com (David Chase) (03/29/89)
In article <2963@kalliope.rice.edu> dboyes@titan.rice.edu (David Boyes) writes: >In article <878@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >> >> DEC, IBM, and others regularly sue >>over 'intellectual property' rights. What makes Apple particularly evil? > >Because DEC and IBM sue over substantial duplication of code or >concept stemming from exposure to a product, not some nebulous >appearance-oriented concept like "look and feel". It just occurred to me that it might be interesting to ask all the people on the "Contributors to GNU CC" list about any software-related litigation that *they* may have been involved in, which side they were on, and what the reasons for bringing the suit were. I'll bet you can find at least one whose suit was entirely a "squash the competition so that we can continue to make money" suit. I can't see what makes Apple so especially evil in this regard. David
rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (03/29/89)
Would you please not waste people's time on info-gcc discussing the technical merits or lack thereof of various proprietary operating systems? Such discussions are not germane even to the question of how FSF deals with Apple, let alone to the subject of GCC. Please move them elsewhere.
chase@Ozona.orc.olivetti.com (David Chase) (03/29/89)
In article <8903282016.AA00479@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: >Would you please not waste people's time on info-gcc discussing the >technical merits or lack thereof of various proprietary operating systems? Fine. How about you reply to the rest of the posting? (and I got your letter, anyway -- the newsgroup duplicate was a waste of people's time and net bandwidth. Tsk, tsk.) Why Apple? As has been pointed out, other companies have sought to creatively interpret intellectual property law to remain sole (and thus high-priced) vendors of equipment or software. What rule should I follow to decide if you might choose not to do business with the company for which I work? I can't see one right now, and I can think of several reasonable-sounding rules which you definitely aren't following. Check your list of contributors carefully before you throw stones at Apple. David
hsu@kampi.hut.fi (Heikki Suonsivu) (03/29/89)
In article <39926@oliveb.olivetti.com> chase@Ozona.UUCP (David Chase) writes: >Apple so especially evil in this regard. Apple was first one to start this hassle. When I first time saw newspaper article about the suit, I had to check the date two times until I had to beleive it really wasn't April Fools... After Apple started it, now all companies doing it following Apple's example. Suddenly we run into a problem that only layers are making money out of this. And if Apple wins the lawsuit, companies get more hungry while they are eating, and soon you'll find out that you can't write any more spreadsheets because someone has patented that. Or editors, or... - hsu@fingate.BITNET ..!mcvax!santra!hsu Heikki Suonsivu @ 2:504/1 2:504/7 hsu@santra.hut.fi hsu@kampi.hut.fi Kuutamokatu 5 A 7/02210 Espoo/FINLAND voice +358-0-171377 fax -628948 v22bis -171558 Scrunch.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (03/30/89)
From article <39924@oliveb.olivetti.com>, by chase@Ozona.orc.olivetti.com (David Chase): " ... When they " get it, then the FSF can defend the uniqueness of *their* look and " feel, and require that any software using it be Free. It's a " two-edged sword (just like copyright protection). Now there's an idea. How many programs have you seen with an emacs-like user interface? Lots, huh. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
EPRF%SNYCENVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Peter Flass) (03/31/89)
I hate to burn bandwidth on a religious crusade, but isn't it interesting
that the two companies most involved in "look and feel" litigation, Apple
and Lotus, didn't create the intellectual property they are so aggressively
defending (anyone remember the Alto or Visicalc).
If lawsuits like this had been in vogue a few years ago Apple's big product
would still be the Apple-II.
- Pete
Disclaimer: These opinions are my own and not those of my employer
(or anyone else, to my knowledge)
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| Peter Flass BITnet: EPRF@SNYCENVM (preferred) |
| Director of Computing Services INTERnet: ESCFLASS@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU |
| SUNY Empire State College AT&Tnet: (518)587-2100 X350 |
| 2 Union Avenue |
| Saratoga Springs NY 12866 "this space for rent" |
| |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+allbery@ncoast.org (Brandon S. Allbery) (03/31/89)
In your message of 29 Mar 89 16:59:45 GMT, you write: +--------------- | >From article <39924@oliveb.olivetti.com>, by chase@Ozona.orc.olivetti.com (D avid Chase): | " ... When they | " get it, then the FSF can defend the uniqueness of *their* look and | " feel, and require that any software using it be Free. It's a | " two-edged sword (just like copyright protection). | | Now there's an idea. How many programs have you seen with | an emacs-like user interface? Lots, huh. | | Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu +--------------- Unipress has a spreadsheet which they claim to have the same interface as their Emacs (!). Just thought you might like to know.... ++Brandon
pardo@uw-june.june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (04/02/89)
"When software is free, only the free will have software"
;-D on ( Vote YES on kill files... ) Pardo
pardo@cs.washington.edu
{rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
--
pardo@cs.washington.edu
{rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardojk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) (04/04/89)
EPRF%SNYCENVM.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In article <8903301740.AA18134@prep.ai.mit.edu> you write: >I hate to burn bandwidth on a religious crusade, but isn't it interesting >that the two companies most involved in "look and feel" litigation, Apple >and Lotus, didn't create the intellectual property they are so aggressively >defending (anyone remember the Alto or Visicalc). > >If lawsuits like this had been in vogue a few years ago Apple's big product >would still be the Apple-II. You just don't get it. I am not a lawyer, thank god, and this is my personal opinion not Apple's, but here goes. This crap about how Apple stole all this from Xerox etc. is not relevant. The issue is the expression of the idea, not the idea. For example, an analogy would be the Civil War. Gone with the Wind is copyrightable. You cannot recreate that expression of the Civil War without expecting to get sued. You are free to create and market/give away your own expression of the Civil War. If it looks like GWTW, smells like GWTW, or quacks like GWTW, the copyright holder for GWTW will probably sue you. I would like to talk to the FSF about the possiblity of donating some Apple H/W S/W to the FSF. If there is interest I will try to arrange for a donation. I am willing to do this in spite of the fact that they are actively waging an anti-Apple hate campaign through those lame buttons, hate text in their releases etc. If they do not accept, or accept and sell the donation and use the $$ or squash the stuff under a steamroller, that should pretty well establish that GNU is only GNU as long as rms gets his way (or something like that...). -------------------- ------------------------------------- John Kullmann "The above fact and/or fiction is the personal ..!apple!jk opinion of John Kullmann and not Apple Computer." jk@apple.com Copyright 1989 by John Kullmann
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (04/05/89)
In article <28354@apple.Apple.COM> jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: >>If lawsuits like this had been in vogue a few years ago Apple's big product >>would still be the Apple-II. > >You just don't get it. The issue is the expression of the idea, >not the idea. Wrong! The issue is that Apple and Xerox have a licensing agreement so that Apple is protected from this sort of nonsense. Apple isn't stupid, just facist. Jon
rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (04/05/89)
Until two years ago, writing a program whose user interface imitated an existing program was standard practice and was always considered lawful. User interfaces were considered utilitarian ideas, not artistic expressions like "Gone with the Wind". This situation was satisfactory, but Apple, Lotus, etc. are trying to change it: to establish a new kind monopoly. No matter how this monopoly is formulated (is it an "idea" or an "expression"), it still takes away programmers' traditional freedom. It is still harmful for the users (no more compatibility) and it is still a disaster for free software. I'd happily accept donations from Apple or its employees, despite all the harm they are otherwise doing to the GNU project, in the form of money, or software that is generally useful. Or bug reports. In other words, I'd accept anything which enables me to help GNU users in general. However, if I accepted a donation of Macintoshes, it would prove I was simple minded. A few machines more or less don't make much difference to how successful GNU will ultimately be. Defeating "look and feel" is essential to keep free software legal. Does anyone have suggestions for new ways to carry on the fight?
mellon@eris.berkeley.edu (Ted Lemon) (04/05/89)
In article <8158@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: >Wrong! The issue is that Apple and Xerox have a licensing agreement so >that Apple is protected from this sort of nonsense. Apple isn't >stupid, just facist. In that case, Apple has no grounds to sue anybody but Xerox, for not protecting their intellectual property. This look-and-feel flaming is nonsense anyway. The copyright laws were set up to benefit society, not to benefit major corporations. It seems to me that giving a major corporation a stranglehold on a certain kind of computer interface is strongly detrimental to society. If you don't buy this argument, look at Apple's technical stagnation over the last five years. They *still* don't have memory protection or pre-emptive multitasking in MacOS, and while the PC and UNIX Workstation markets have seen performance growing in leaps and bounds due to competition, Apple hardware has been getting better incredibly slowly. I have on my desk a UNIX workstation that cost several thousand bux less than a Mac II, but runs programs four times faster! _MelloN_
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (04/05/89)
/ gnu.gcc / jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) / Apr 4, 1989 / >The issue is the expression of the idea, >not the idea. For example, an analogy would be the Civil War. Gone with the >Wind is copyrightable. You cannot recreate that expression of the Civil War >without expecting to get sued. [...] >your own expression of the Civil War. If it looks like GWTW, smells like >GWTW, or quacks like GWTW, the copyright holder for GWTW will probably >sue you. According to your thinking, copyright holders of Rocky, Karate Kid, Raging Bull, Breaking Away and countless other "person wins respect by winning some unwinnable competition three minutes before the movie ends" movies should all be suing each other now. Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,chinet,att}!nucsrl!gore
raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (04/05/89)
In article <28354@apple.Apple.COM> jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: > > ... This crap about how Apple stole all this >from Xerox etc. is not relevant. The issue is the expression of the idea, >not the idea. That's the point. "Look and feel" represents a class of expressions, not an instance, and only instances are protected. A publishing analogy would be attempting to copyright paperback books as look and feel. It's the content of Gone With the Wind that's protected, not the medium for its expression. Protecting the look and feel is more dangerous than protecting paperback books because it would inhibit our ability to improve user interfaces by combining the best ideas from different "look and feel domains". Beyond that, protecting look and feel would stifle our ability to simply produce products. -------------- Does anyone have addresses for Apple executives? -------------- I'd like to write to them to tell them that their actions are morally corrupt. Perhaps if a few thousand others on the net also sent letters they might rethink their position. ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu
moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) (04/06/89)
In article <8904042254.AA00430@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: >... Defeating "look and feel" >is essential to keep free software legal. > >Does anyone have suggestions for new ways to carry on the fight? Unfortunately, stopping Apple and/or Lotus won't stop the look-and-feel battle. Someone else, perhaps someone with more clout, will eventually try to do the same thing again even should Apple fail. (Though a court ruling against Apple would make it more difficult for others to succeed, I don't expect it to happen. Neither party in the Apple look-and-feel suit will want to have such a precedent on the books. Either Apple will win or they will settle out-of-court.) One way to "solve" the problem in the longer term: Get Congress to enact legislation that legalizes a certain degree of look-and-feel compatibility. This would probably take the form of some sort of compromise that lets you copy some features of a program as long as you don't make a "clone". There would also be a distinction to be made between machine-interface compatibility and human-interface compatibility, so you wouldn't have to worry about making a compatible C compiler, for instance, but you couldn't make an exact copy of the Macintosh desktop. From an ideological standpoint, this would be unpalatable. On the other hand, I think this would let FSF and others carry on their work without having to worry about interference. And I'd much rather have Congress decide what is a reasonable degree of look-and-feel than to have the court system decide. Other (less likely) types of compromises which could be made: (a) Exclude free software from having to worry about look-and-feel suits. (Presumably the author of the free software would have to be able to produce his source code to demonstrate that he actually wrote the stuff instead of just patching someone else's binary.) (b) Allow look-and-feel copyrights, but only for a very short tenure. This preserves some of the original idea of copyright law, but updates it to the present circumstances where software becomes obsolete long before the copyright runs out. The problem here is that Congress generally serves the interests of those who are in business to make money, instead of those who are out to make the world a better place. Still, I would imagine that some sort of compromise is possible, hopefully one that would not interfere with FSF. I would imagine that there are even now enough people who benefit from free software or "shareware", who are capable of understanding the dangers presented by the look-and-feel suit, and who would support legislation by Congress that placed strict limits on what could be construed as look-and-feel ripoff. Has any kind of legislation been proposed that might address this? If not, could we somehow come up with some sort of "rough draft" for such a bill? (Keeping in mind that it has to allow for compromise with the moneygrubbers.) Perhaps the collective efforts of the net (with some legal assistance) might be useful in getting some of the legislators interested in such a bill. Authors of free software could ask their "customers" to let Congress know how valuable such contributions are, and to ask that the right to make and distribute free software be preserved. I think this technique would be especially effective among PC users. ("If you like this program, please press F10 to print a letter to your congressman asking him to enact legislation that allows free software to continue to exist.") -- Keith Moore UT Computer Science Dept. Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus BITNET: moore@utkvx Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301 Telephone: +1 615 974 0822
ewing@tramp.Colorado.EDU (EWING DAVID JAMES) (04/06/89)
Quiet, please. I'm trying to read my news... | Dave Ewing | Internet: ewing@tramp.colorado.EDU (128.138.238.33) | 4437 Clipper Ct. | AppleLink: D2408 | | Boulder, CO 80301 | GEnie: D.EWING1 | The usual disclaimer about | | Compu$erve: 73447,1726 | having my own brain.
denny@mcmi.UUCP (Denny Page) (04/07/89)
moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes: >And I'd much rather have >Congress decide what is a reasonable degree of look-and-feel than >to have the court system decide. I cannot agree with this. Lobby groups would come out of the walls, most of which would be supported by companies like Apple who would like to see very restrictive laws in place. The programming community (at least that part of it that is concerned by these lawsuits) does not represent a sufficently sizable body to effectively lobby Congress via a letter campaign. Existing laws are your best bet. -- Someday never comes
colburn@lhasa.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Mark H. Colburn) (04/08/89)
denny@mcmi.uucp (Denny Page) writes: > I cannot agree with this. Lobby groups would come out of the walls, > most of which would be supported by companies like Apple who would > like to see very restrictive laws in place. The programming > community (at least that part of it that is concerned by these > lawsuits) does > not represent a sufficently sizable body to effectively lobby > Congress via a letter campaign. Actually, it is not that the programmers don't constitute a big enough body, it's that we are not all that organized, and we do not have a central source of funds. Unfortunately, the "squeaky wheel get's the grease" hold true in government. It is not necessarily what is best for society that is done, it is what is best for the few, the loud and the solvent. If the programmers could ban together and sign a petition, or write letters, or whatever to show their strength, it might be able to influence the government. However, I am not sure that having government involvement is what we really what anyways. I suppose that we could engage in a mail campaign against Apple... Mark Mark H. Colburn MN65-2300 colburn@SRC.Honeywell.COM Systems Administration and Support Honeywell Systems & Research Center
flee@shire.cs.psu.edu (Felix Lee) (04/08/89)
In article <819@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, moore@cygnusx1.cs.utk.edu (Keith Moore) writes: >(b) Allow look-and-feel copyrights, but only for a very short tenure. >This preserves some of the original idea of copyright law, but updates it >to the present circumstances where software becomes obsolete long before >the copyright runs out. Let's grant one-year copyrights for *any* software product! (When was the last time you used a release of software that was more than a year old? Really? You should be ashamed!) How about copyrights lasting one year or until the warranty expires, whichever is shorter? Let's munge copyrights to fit the high-speed information society! -- Felix Lee flee@shire.cs.psu.edu *!psuvax1!shire!flee
rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) (04/09/89)
Ted Lemon writes: > [...] It seems > to me that giving a major corporation a stranglehold on a certain kind > of computer interface is strongly detrimental to society. I don't think Apple is claiming ownership of graphical user interfaces; it is simply claiming ownership of the Macintosh graphical user interface. So it is not seeking a stranglehold on a certain kind of computer interface; it is simply seeking a stranglehold on its own implementation of a certain kind of user interface. It has every right to do so.
brooks@vette.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks) (04/09/89)
In article <Apr.8.15.48.48.1989.17519@topaz.rutgers.edu> rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) writes: > I don't think Apple is claiming ownership of graphical >user interfaces; it is simply claiming ownership of the Macintosh >graphical user interface. So it is not seeking a stranglehold on a >certain kind of computer interface; it is simply seeking a stranglehold >on its own implementation of a certain kind of user interface. >It has every right to do so. The attitude of FSF to the "look and feel" suits is quite reasonable. If Apple had written the program "make" they would no doubt be setting their lawyers upon FSF for creating and distributing "gnumake" which would be cutting into their profits. Gnumake duplicates the "look and feel" of make. brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp
cire@CISCO.COM (cire|eric) (04/09/89)
|> >From bug-gcc-request@prep.ai.mit.edu Sat Apr 8 14:50:21 1989 |> Date: 8 Apr 89 19:48:56 GMT |> From: rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) |> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. |> Subject: Re: GNU's not GNU... |> References: <28354@apple.Apple.COM>, <8158@polya.Stanford.EDU>, <22643@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> |> Sender: info-gcc-request@prep.ai.mit.edu |> To: info-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu |> |> Ted Lemon writes: |> |> > [...] It seems |> > to me that giving a major corporation a stranglehold on a certain kind |> > of computer interface is strongly detrimental to society. |> |> I don't think Apple is claiming ownership of graphical |> user interfaces; it is simply claiming ownership of the Macintosh |> graphical user interface. So it is not seeking a stranglehold on a |> certain kind of computer interface; it is simply seeking a stranglehold |> on its own implementation of a certain kind of user interface. |> It has every right to do so. Nonsense. Apple is sueing over a particular class of graphical user interfaces or at least I have to conclude it is doing so. Apple is suing Microsoft over MS-Windows and HP over NewWave. Seems that NewWave can be made to look like Macintosh windows. And NewWave can be made to look like a lot of other things. So you tell me where the Mac leaves off and other things begin. -c cire|eric
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) (04/10/89)
> Gnumake duplicates the "look and feel" of make.
You can never tell when lawyers will come up with new ways to turn
black into white, but originally "look and feel" was based on
copyrighting something as a work of art (although it now appears that
you don't really have to do that). As far as I know, it has only been
applied to programs that have a non-trivial "style" to their screen
appearance. I've never heard of such a suit against a program using a
line-oriented interface. From what I know of the Gnu project's plans,
it's not likely that its projects would run afoul of anybody's "look
and feel". The real issue with make would be cloning make's input
language. This is a rather different legal issue. I don't recall
what legal theories have been proposed there, and whether there are
any relevant suits. Most Unix specifications are now part of the IEEE
and international standards, so I think at this point it would be hard
to claim a proprietary status for them.
I do not object to the FSF taking public stands on issues such as look
and feel. Look and feel could threaten attempts to reverse engineer
PD versions of some software. These are close enough to FSF's aim
that I think they are a legitimate area for FSF to make statements
about. However if FSF is concerned about actual threats to the Gnu
project itself, I'd suggest that it should retain appropriate counsel
and make sure exactly what is and what isn't likely to threaten it.
The statements to date do not suggest to me that they are based on
legal assessments of likely threats to the Gnu project.dlw@odi.UUCP (Dan Weinreb) (04/10/89)
In reply to Robert Hsu: Yes, Apple is not claiming ownership of all graphical
user interfaces. Yes, Apple is claiming ownership of the Macintosh user
interface. Or anything deemed by a court to be substantially identical
with it. If you've ever seen a plagurism dispute you know that this can
be a tough call sometimes, but other times it's obvious. If Apple and
Lotus do win, the next battle will be over how the degree of similarity
of two user interfaces is measured: how different do you have to be
to avoid lawsuits? If it happens, it'll be a horrible headache for
years to come.
But no, they are *not* just claiming ownership of the *implementation*.
If someone independently implements the same user interface, Apple
claims that this is a copyright infringement. RMS has explained why
this would be a big problem for FSF, and it would be a big problem for
companies and users everywhere. This distinction, between
implementation and user interface, is the key point of the "look and
feel" disputes.
In reply to Eugene Brooks, the present string of decisions and lawsuits
are very far from claiming that "gnumake" would be protected had Apple
written "make". This is because when they say "look and feel", they
mean these words in a colloquial sense. As I said earlier, the basis
of this whole string of legal reasoning is cases involving video games.
So far, the Apple and Lotus suits have been claiming ownership of
"computer screen displays". You and I know that, technically, these
aren't very different from "the specification of 'make' as written in
a manual", but to the copyright law there is a very big difference.
One might worry that if Apple and Lotus win, the *next* step might be
to try to extend things even further, in such a way that abstract
specifications such as a "make" manual would cause anything that
implemented said spec to be protectable by copyright law. This would
be an even worse disaster. But to be fair and accurate, we should
keep in mind that nobody has even claimed this, yet. {Personally, I
think it's unlikely that this would ever manage to happen, but things
are volatile and confused right now, and you never can tell.richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Richard Foulk) (04/10/89)
} I would like to talk to the FSF about the possiblity of donating } some Apple H/W S/W to the FSF. If there is interest I will try to arrange } for a donation. I am willing to do this in spite of the } fact that they are actively waging an anti-Apple hate campaign } through those lame buttons, hate text in their releases etc. If they do } not accept, or accept and sell the donation and use the $$ or squash } the stuff under a steamroller, that should pretty well establish that } GNU is only GNU as long as rms gets his way (or something like that...). } Great logic! If you can't buy him off then he must truly be evil. About as twisted as the logic behind Apple's lawsuit. I'll gladly contribute to the steamroller rental. As long as I get to watch. Richard Foulk richard@uhccux.uhccc.hawaii.edu
desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) (04/11/89)
In article <292@odi.UUCP> dlw@odi.UUCP (Dan Weinreb) writes: > >One might worry that if Apple and Lotus win, the *next* step might be >to try to extend things even further, in such a way that abstract >specifications such as a "make" manual would cause anything that >implemented said spec to be protectable by copyright law. For obvious reasons, I'm not going to comment on the Apple lawsuit. However, I will point out that the tack above has been tried by others (I think Adobe and PostScript, for a recent example) and there is precedent that a "computer language", whatever that is, is not copyrightable. Peter Desnoyers
faulkner@jmullins.harvard.edu (Don Faulkner) (04/11/89)
I really don't mind the discussions about apple ... ad nauseum, but I get tired of having it dominate gnu.gcc one month, then gnu.emacs, then gnu.g++ .... then cycling again.... Is it time for "gnu.d" or "gnu.politics"?? -- Don Faulkner Building 1, Room 803 Harvard University, School of Public Health 665 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 ARPA: faulkner%jmullins@harvard.harvard.edu BITNET: faulkner@harvard Telephone: (617) 732-2297
fischer@iesd.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (04/11/89)
In article <28723@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >.... and there is >precedent that a "computer language", whatever that is, is not >copyrightable. Is AT trying to sue the pants off anyone that uses he dBaseI+ language(s)? I beleive that the hold that the dBase languages are "proprietary". /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.dk, {...}!mcvax!iesd!fischer Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke
dwb@sticks.apple.com (David W. Berry) (04/11/89)
In article <8904042254.AA00430@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: >I'd happily accept donations from Apple or its employees, despite all >the harm they are otherwise doing to the GNU project, in the form of >money, or software that is generally useful. Or bug reports. In >other words, I'd accept anything which enables me to help GNU users in >general. Well, that's certainly news. I have on several occasions offered to FSF the necessary changes to make gcc work under A/UX. I offered changes for 1.22, 1.24 and 1.25. I will once again make the offer. If you would like the necessary changes to make A/UX 1.34 compile and run under A/UX please let me know and I'll be happy to forward the changes to you. If not, I'd request you drop the pretense of "happily accept donations from Apple or its employees." Opinions: MINE, ALL MINE! (greedy evil chuckle) David W. Berry (A/UX Toolbox Engineer) dwb@apple.com 973-5168@408.MaBell AppleLink: berry1
rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (04/11/89)
>money, or software that is generally useful. Or bug reports. In >other words, I'd accept anything which enables me to help GNU users in >general. Well, that's certainly news. I have on several occasions offered to FSF the necessary changes to make gcc work under A/UX. This would not help GNU users in general.
gjc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (George J. Carrette) (04/11/89)
Why dont you just mail RMS your changes for AUX and get a good nights sleep? Why do you want him to *ask* for the changes? Just send the changes, and he may or may not find them "generally useful" You just take that risk. Alternatively you could modify AUX so that running GNU stuff did not require changes! How about making your changes available for anonymous FTP from someplace? -gjc
scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (04/11/89)
In article <FAULKNER.89Apr10165918@jmullins.harvard.edu> faulkner@jmullins.harvard.edu (Don Faulkner) writes: >I really don't mind the discussions about apple ... ad nauseum, but > >Is it time for "gnu.d" or "gnu.politics"?? Long past, actually. Is there anyone 'officially' in charge of the gnu groups? We could always start a 'creation/destruction' discussion :-) :-) :-) Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (04/11/89)
In article <947@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: In article <FAULKNER.89Apr10165918@jmullins.harvard.edu> faulkner@jmullins.harvard.edu (Don Faulkner) writes: >Is it time for "gnu.d" or "gnu.politics"?? Long past, actually. Is there anyone 'officially' in charge of the gnu groups? We could always start a 'creation/destruction' discussion :-) :-) :-) Please move this discussion discussion to gnu.config. It is inappropriate for gnu.gcc/info-gcc. I've directed followups accordingly.
dboyes@great-horned.Rice.EDU (David E. Boyes) (04/12/89)
Somewhere David Chase at chase@Ozona.UUCP said: >It just occurred to me that it might be interesting to ask all the >people on the "Contributors to GNU CC" list about any software-related >litigation that *they* may have been involved in, which side they were >on, and what the reasons for bringing the suit were. I'll bet you can >find at least one whose suit was entirely a "squash the competition so >that we can continue to make money" suit. I can't see what makes >Apple so especially evil in this regard. My problem with this sort of behavior is not the action -- although I find such behavior absolutely reprehensible -- but the attitude. I've dealt with IBM research organizations and been involved in a number of development projects that never saw the light of day as real products. My experience has been that companies like IBM and DEC will *not* risk litigation unless they have an absolutely airtight case that they are certain they can win. I've followed the Apple case fairly closely, and I haven't seen any evidence that either of the defendants in this case have even *looked* at Apple's code. It's very much a *preemptive* action on their part, and nowhere do I see Apple giving credit to the people who really deserve it: the researchers at Xerox PARC. If Apple had built the concept of a windowing system up from scratch, and HP and Microsoft had blatantly (or not-so-blatantly) used their labors to build and sell windowing systems that claimed to be original work, I'd be cheering for Apple in this. However, that is *NOT* the case. Apple started from the Xerox research groups, just like everyone else. They have no justification for their 'holier-than-thou' attitude, or to attempt to force the FSF to provide support for their machines. If any of you would care to continue this discussion, please send mail directly to me -- I'd rather use this forum to talk about GCC.
dboyes@great-horned.Rice.EDU (David E. Boyes) (04/12/89)
Peter Flass (eprf@snycenvm.bitnet) said: >I hate to burn bandwidth on a religious crusade, but isn't it interesting >that the two companies most involved in "look and feel" litigation, Apple >and Lotus, didn't create the intellectual property they are so aggressively >defending (anyone remember the Alto or Visicalc). I'm typing this on a Dorado, Alto's big brother. 8-) They're not all gone...thank goodness.
martillo@cpoint.UUCP (Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo) (04/13/89)
In article <28354@apple.Apple.COM> jk@Apple.COM (John Kullmann) writes: You are free to create and market/give away >your own expression of the Civil War. If it looks like GWTW, smells like >GWTW, or quacks like GWTW, the copyright holder for GWTW will probably >sue you. Actually, unless concepts of copyright have changed even more than I thought, the GWTW copyright holder can only sue me if I use the same sequence of words. If only my binding, cover, pagination, paragraphing etc. (you know -- the user interface) are similar, the GWTW copyright holder does not have a case. >-------------------- ------------------------------------- >John Kullmann "The above fact and/or fiction is the personal >..!apple!jk opinion of John Kullmann and not Apple Computer." >jk@apple.com Copyright 1989 by John Kullmann
jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK (Jeff Dalton) (04/13/89)
> In article <8904042254.AA00430@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> > rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) w> rites: > >I'd happily accept donations from Apple or its employees, despite all > >the harm they are otherwise doing to the GNU project, in the form of > >money, or software that is generally useful. Or bug reports. In > >other words, I'd accept anything which enables me to help GNU users in > >general. > > Well, that's certainly news. I have on several occasions > offered to FSF the necessary changes to make gcc work under A/UX. But are those changes "generally useful"? I suspect that changes that work only for A/UX are not what he has in mind.
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (04/15/89)
In article <28723@apple.Apple.COM> desnoyer@Apple.COM (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
For obvious reasons, I'm not going to comment on the Apple lawsuit.
However, I will point out that the tack above has been tried by others
(I think Adobe and PostScript, for a recent example) and there is
precedent that a "computer language", whatever that is, is not
copyrightable.
Back to the law book; let me summarize in a crude way the three major
formal ways of protect intellectual property, to see why copyrighting of
look-and-feel is very bad, and very disingenous:
Patent
Applies-to: ORIGINAL and NON OBVIOUS (to a PRACTITIONER)
INVENTIONS of INDUSTRIAL devices and processes
Duration: 17 years from application
Requires: full DISCLOSURE of the details
Grants: exclusive rights to EXPLOIT
Comments:
Designed to protect for a short (17 years used be very short)
period of time an investement in manufacturing research.
Note that if somebody reinvents it independently, the prior
patent holds. A VERY strong protection, even against
subsequent invention. Also, the requirement for invention
means that discoveries cannot be patented; e.g. mathematics,
physics, etc... The application of a discovery may be a process
though, and therefore patentable. Other elements that make
it very strong are that it is very expensive to sue over a
patent claim, either to defend or attack it, and for big
corporations this means a lot (no smaller competitor will
challenge even the most ridiculous claim, or defend even
the strongest one).
Copyright
Applies-to: the EXPRESSION of a NON TRIVIAL idea.
Duration: lifetime of author, and 50 years after that
Requires: (used to, actually) a NOTICE and PUBLICATION
Grants: esclusive rights to REPRODUCE, in a variety of ways
Comments:
Designed to protect for a long (probably now too long, it
used to be a fixed number of years from publication) period
the interests of an individual author and allow authors to
live of the fruits of their work. It does not protect in any
way the contents, only the expression and derivatives. The fact
that now publication is no longer required is very bizarre,
and untraditional. It is a very strong protection, because it
lasts very long, it costs nothing (well...), and covers all
possible types of reproduction, includiding derivatives (of the
expression, not of the idea). Scope is not wide, it definitely
applies only to expressions of ideas. Fonts for example cannot
be copyrighted, because a glyph does not express an idea.
TradeMark
Applies-to: any DISTINCTIVE and IDENTIFYING ASPECT of a good/service
Duration: as long as it used, and then a short period after that
Requires: a NOTICE and optionally a REGISTRATION
Grants: exclusive rights to CHARACTERIZE good/service
Comments:
Designed to protect an investment in marketing.
Weakest of all protections, as it lapses if not used; also
widest, as anything, as long as suitable, can be protected,
even common names, designs, phrases, etc... It does protect
against imitations, e.g. the use of something that is not
sufficiently distinctive, and mistaken identifications by
the public. It is also quite cheap to obtain and defend.
Can be used to protect otherwise unprotectable items, which
you still think have cost you an investment, e.g. the name
of a font, or even the yellow border of Nat.Geo. When a trademark
is no longer IN FACT distinctive and identifying of a specific
product or service, it can no longer be used as such; this is
different and weaker than the others.
I see things in this way (which I reckon to be very simplistic but
accurate), and I agree with RMS that such protections are accorded to
stimulate investment in industrial research, authorship, and marketing, not
to suppress them in favour of the corporations with big lawyer teams and
pursuing a strategy of exhaustion (with smaller rivals) or delay (with big
ones).
All this said, I reckon that in no way copyright law, even with the recent
wanton extensions to it, can be used to protect an investment in look and
feel. Simply, look and feel is not a precisely defined expression of an
idea. If I build a windowing interface similar to the Mac's one, without
copying literally parts of the Mac's, I am creating an independent, similar
work, not a derivative. It is like reusing ideas in the plot of a film, not
actual pieces of the film.
If look and feel were indeed deemed to have been intended to be
copyrightable, which in my opinion requires a colossal extension of what is
considered to be copyrightable, than this should be rectified, because
copyright is not the right instrument with which protect look and feel,
because its scope would become too wide, and it lasts too long.
On the other hand IF look and feel should be protectable, clearly trade mark
protection is the way to do it. It is appropriate, not too wide, and has
been used historically for other look and feel issues, such as the coke
bottle or the NatGeo yellow border.
What is terrible about Apple's action is the attempt to obtain the strong
and virtually eternal protection of copyright for a whole class of interfaces,
not for a specific expression and its derivatives; in other words Apple
is trying to patent by stealth an idea, and to get away with even greater
protection than patenting allows.
This is considerably complicated by the details of the licensing agreements
between Apple, HP and Microsoft. I don't know what possessed HP and Microsoft
when they licensed Apple's windowing ideas, and why ever they did not insist
that it licensing based on trade mark law. Actually, I can imagine why, but
it was a very short sighted why, and subsequent events proved it.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukshap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (04/16/89)
I propose that we create gnu.politics, because gnu.gcc and gnu.config aren't the right place for this sort of discussion, but the discussions are important and the gnu contingent needs to be having them. Observation: the discussion over this issue has been hotter than the discussion over gnu.gcc! Jon
rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette) (04/17/89)
I also would like to see a new newsgroup/mailing-list called gnu.politics
or gnu.philosophy or some such thing.
I can see how such a group would come in handy. For instance, right now
I'd like to inform all the GNU'ers out there that this month's IEEE Micro
magazine contains an interesting MicroLaw column that talks about some
recent cases involving the definition of "derivative works". Where should
I post such a public service announcement? Obviously, the info-gcc mailing-list/
newsgroup is *not* really the correct place, but where else?
// 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