rms@ai.mit.edu (07/21/89)
The FSF does not include support for A/UX in the Emacs distribution because we are boycotting Apple for their "look and feel" lawsuit. We will continue to boycott them until they either lose or drop the suit. If they win the suit, the boycott will continue as long as we do. Apple is trying to create a new kind of legal monopoly, a monopoly on a class of programs based on their user interface. If they succeed, the making of free compatible imitations of commercial software would be illegal. This would be the end of the long-term hopes of the GNU project. It would also take away the traditional freedom of all other programmers. If our boycott, which has received national attention in the press, significantly harms Apple's public good will, it may make other companies think twice about suing people in this way. Even if Apple wins in court, they may lose in the market, or be overruled by Congress--if public opinion takes a clear stand. By contrast, ameliorating A/UX by helping people install GNU software would make A/UX more attractive, thus increasing its sales, and thus nourishing the predatory lawyers. So, if you appreciate GNU software, and hope to see more of it in the future, take a long-term view: boycott Apple with us. If you can figure out how to run GNU software on A/UX, please solve some other problem instead. If you can supply copies of Emacs for A/UX, spend your time helping people in some other way instead.
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/21/89)
In article <8907202252.AA02288@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> GNURU rms@ai.mit.edu writes: >Apple is trying to create a new kind of legal monopoly, a monopoly on >a class of programs based on their user interface. If they succeed, !! >the making of free compatible imitations of commercial software would !! >be illegal. You said it. Who do you think you are that you can copy other peoples ideas and disturb the market by distributing free copies of it. How would you like it if I took your C compiler, ported it to computer X and sold it for good money. There is nothing wrong about creating software and distributing it freely. It is very wrong to steal someones product and feel good about it. Shame on you. Mart van Stiphout Eindhoven University of Technology Dept. of Electrical Engineering -- Room EH7.34 P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl ------------------------------- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop
fritz@unocss.UUCP (Tim Russell) (07/21/89)
rms@ai.mit.edu writes: >The FSF does not include support for A/UX in the Emacs distribution >because we are boycotting Apple for their "look and feel" lawsuit. >We will continue to boycott them until they either lose or drop the suit. >If they win the suit, the boycott will continue as long as we do. Mr. Stallman: What Apple is doing is wrong. I agree. What you are doing is also wrong, i.e. leaving the many people who have unknowingly supported Apple in the dust. I use gnu emacs because it is a fine product, as are all the FSF programs. It's really a pity that the FSF has such a fanatic for a leader. If I thought that it would hurt the FSF, I would stop using all gnu products and remove them from our system. But it won't, so I won't. By the way, the breaking point for me was when you proposed that the difference between the killings in China and Apple's lawsuit was only "a matter of degree", in this message: >From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU >Newsgroups: gnu.gcc >Subject: (none) >Date: 6 Jun 89 19:11:07 GMT > > >Whether it be Tiananmen Square or Panama City or Pretoria... > >etc. > > Shheesh...get a grip on reality here. In no way is the issue of > free software nearly as big a deal this nut makes out. People are > DYING in Tiananmen Square, you know. > >The fight for the freedom to program has not escalated to the level of >killing. Apple is not trying to shoot programmers who write >compatible software, and we are not trying to shoot the employees of >Apple. > >However, they are trying to arrange to send men with guns (police) to >stop us from writing compatible software. They probably will try to >avoid shooting, but they may well imprison some of us for years if we >refuse to stop. > >The difference between this and China is a matter of degree. The >spirit is the same. By drawing this comparison, Mr. Stallman, you cheapened the lives of many brave students who fought and died in China for the concept of freedom. I am deeply ashamed of you and am only glad that this message was not seen by the American public at large. I post this here because some of the Emacs people may not have seen the debates in gnu.gcc. I think that you're so devoted to the concept of free software, Mr. Stallman, that you've forgotten the people that use that software. -- ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Tim Russell, Computer Operator | Internet: russell@zeus.unl.edu Campus Computing | Bitnet: russell@unoma1 University of Nebraska at Omaha | UUCP: uunet!zeus.unl.edu!russell
cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) (07/22/89)
In article <1104@unocss.UUCP>, fritz@unocss (Tim Russell) writes: >I post this here because some of the Emacs people may not have seen the >debates in gnu.gcc. And, boy, are we sorry that we didn't see them. Sam
lum@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) (07/22/89)
In article <85@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: > Who do you think you are that you can copy other peoples ideas and > disturb the market by distributing free copies of it. How would you > like it if I took your C compiler, ported it to computer X and sold > it for good money. There is nothing wrong about creating software > and distributing it freely. It is very wrong to steal someones > product and feel good about it. Shame on you. Shame on you. The FSF have stolen nothing; getting a program to do any damn thing you can think of is only a small matter of programming. I can do it; you can do it; anyone can do it. Apple, on the other hand, are widely acknowledged to have stolen the ideas for their user interface from Xerox, admittedly with Xerox' connivance, who were stupid enough to not appropriately distrust Apple. I recently had the opportunity to buy a personal computer. I could quite easily have bought a Mac II, but I bought an old PDP-11/23 clone because I could be certain what I was getting and what I could expect. Lum -=- -- Lum Johnson lum@cis.ohio-state.edu lum@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu "You got it kid -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -------
tweinst@polyslo.calpoly.edu (Tom Weinstein) (07/22/89)
In article <85@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: >In article <8907202252.AA02288@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> GNURU rms@ai.mit.edu >writes: >>Apple is trying to create a new kind of legal monopoly, a monopoly on >>a class of programs based on their user interface. If they succeed, >!! >the making of free compatible imitations of commercial software would !! >>be illegal. > >You said it. Who do you think you are that you can copy other peoples >ideas and disturb the market by distributing free copies of it. >How would you like it if I took your C compiler, ported it to ^^^^^^ >computer X and sold it for good money. >There is nothing wrong about creating software and distributing it freely. ^^^^^^^^ >It is very wrong to steal someones product and feel good about it. ^^^^^ When you say port, you mean working from the source code. What the FSF is doing is reverse engineering software from the specs, and the way it interacts with the rest of the world. Not quite the same thing. Source code is definitely a copyrightable resource. I don't dispute this. What I do disagree with is the idea that "look and feel" is copyrightable. This would imply that, for instance, any program that printed out the date and time in the same format as, and accepted the same arguments as, the UNIX 'date' command would infringe on AT&T's copyright. To me, at least, this is stupid. The same goes for a C compiler. Obviously, the C language is very standardized, and all compilers are hopefully going to accept identical code. However, are we going to start suing each other just because the machine dependent parts of our compilers produce identical executables? What I am trying to show is that the definition of "look and feel" is not as cut and dried as many people think. You may think that Apple has a right to protect their windowing interface. The only problem with their doing so is that it implicitly grants the right to protect other, somewhat less unique, user interfaces. And where does it end? What, exaclty, can they protect? Close boxes in the upper left? Striped title bars? Or even windowing interfaces in general? Once you open this box, there isn't any shutting it. I think that Apple has a right to protect their source code. But if somebody wants to take the time and effort to duplicate their user interface independently, who is Apple to say that they can't? >Mart van Stiphout >Eindhoven University of Technology >Dept. of Electrical Engineering -- Room EH7.34 >P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands >Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl >------------------------------- -- Tom Weinstein | tweinst@polyslo.calpoly.edu | ucbvax!voder!polyslo!tweinst
lum@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) (07/23/89)
In article <LUM.89Jul21192816@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> lum@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) writes: > Apple, on the other hand, are widely acknowledged to have stolen > the ideas for their user interface from Xerox, admittedly with Xerox' > connivance, who were stupid enough to not appropriately distrust Apple. As someone else has pointed out to me, Apple have actually paid Xerox for some concepts acquired from them. Fair's fair - I acknowledge this. What I meant was that everyone I know is more aware than Apple seems willing to be of just where all this wonderful stuff actually came from. But you'll pardon me, I hope, if sometimes some of the asinine nonsense spouted here by the rabid anti-FSF people just plain pisses me off. Lum -=- -- Lum Johnson lum@cis.ohio-state.edu lum@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu "You got it kid -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -------
dsmythe@cup.portal.com (dave l smythe) (07/24/89)
STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP. We all suffered through this nonsense ad nauseum in gnu.gcc. RMS opinions are well known and should be debated elsewhere. If you don't have something to say about GNU software (other than politics) please don't post here. This is not the appropriate forum to debate the existence/purpose/goals of the FSF. The last thing we need is to have RMS decouple info-gnu from the gnu heirarchy and ignore the comments/suggestions/questions posted here. Remember that the gnu 'newsgroups' are not part of USENET news, only distributed via the same mechanism. Before you respond, please browse through the old discussions in gnu.gcc and if you must still repsond, email me (so only I have to ignore your flames). flames > /dev/null Dave Smythe dsmythe@cup.portal.com
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/24/89)
In article <117034@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) writes: >In article <1104@unocss.UUCP>, fritz@unocss (Tim Russell) writes: >>I post this here because some of the Emacs people may not have seen the >>debates in gnu.gcc. > >And, boy, are we sorry that we didn't see them. > >Sam Again and again I see responses from gnurus that should be banned from the net. First they don't read (or understand) the arguments . Then they start flaming without introducing arguments themselves. What is this? Why can't gnu or rms take any criticism. Is this a religion with imam Stallman as a leader. I guess it is. So Sam why don't you shut your mouth and get down on your knees to worship your leader a little more. Mart van Stiphout Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl ------------------------------- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/24/89)
In article <LUM.89Jul21192816@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> lum@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) writes: >Shame on you. The FSF have stolen nothing; getting a program to do >any damn thing you can think of is only a small matter of programming. I reacted on the exact lines in Stallman's article. In that article he claimed the right to copy any commercial software and give it away. I think in general this is illegal and if it isn't it should be. I said nothing about Apple since I think their lawsuit is foolish. But Stallman's a fanatic fool too. Mart van Stiphout Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl ------------------------------- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop
grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu (Dirk Grunwald) (07/25/89)
In article <88@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes:
I reacted on the exact lines in Stallman's article. In that
article he claimed the right to copy any commercial software
and give it away. I think in general this is illegal and if it isn't
it should be.
-----
I think that `copy' in this context means ``produce a replicant,''
e.g., as the Gnu C compiler is to a commerical C compiler. I do not
think that it implied that RMS will copy Lotus-1-2-3 and distirbute
it.
--
Dirk Grunwald -- Univ. of Illinois (grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu)cramer@sun.com (Sam Cramer) (07/25/89)
Mr. van Stiphout has provided a perfect example of the sort of ill-mannered, loutish, content-free drivel that I was hoping we could avoid in this forum. Mart, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us - I, for one, find them most instructive. Sam
wilkes@mips.COM (John Wilkes) (07/26/89)
is there a gnu.religion newsgroup?
--
-wilkes
wilkes@mips.com -OR- {ames, decwrl, pyramid}!mips!wilkestvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) (07/27/89)
In article <55791@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Lum Johnson <lum@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >In article <LUM.89Jul21192816@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu> lum@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) writes: >> Apple, on the other hand, are widely acknowledged to have stolen >> the ideas for their user interface from Xerox, admittedly with Xerox' >> connivance, who were stupid enough to not appropriately distrust Apple. >As someone else has pointed out to me, Apple have actually paid Xerox >for some concepts acquired from them. Fair's fair - I acknowledge this. I recall a article that came out a few weeks after the "look-and-feel" suit came out where Xerox officials were denying that the agreement that they signed with Apple didn't cover {any, nowheres neare the amount of} the technology they "borrowed". Thomas V. Frauenhofer ...!rutgers!rochester!cci632!ccird7!tvf *or* ...!rochester!cci632!ccird7!frau!tvf *or* ...!rochester!rit!anna!ma!tvf1477 FRAU BBS: (716) 227-8094 2400/1200/300 baud - log in as "new" to register "The Earth? I'm going to blow it up. It obstructs my view of Venus" - Martin
tvf@cci632.UUCP (Tom Frauenhofer) (07/28/89)
:-) Call for Votes: Creation of the following newsgroups: gnu.flame.rms gnu.mistake.aux gnu.loud.clatter Seriously, RMS and his beliefs have been flamed enough. If you have a problem with the GNU philosophy (which RMS is the main creator of) then don't use the GNU stuff, buy commercial products, and please ignore this (and related) newsgroups. Thomas V. Frauenhofer ...!rutgers!rochester!cci632!ccird7!tvf *or* ...!rochester!cci632!ccird7!frau!tvf *or* ...!rochester!rit!anna!ma!tvf1477 FRAU BBS: (716) 227-8094 2400/1200/300 baud - log in as "new" to register "The Earth? I'm going to blow it up. It obstructs my view of Venus" - Martin
mellon@zayante.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) (07/29/89)
Actually, flames against flames about rms are almost as bad as the flames about rms, since we're really here to discuss gnu emacs, not rms's politics. I've redirected followups to gnu.misc.discuss, which is a more appropriate venue. _MelloN_
rms@AI.MIT.EDU (10/12/89)
The GNU project is a project to make a free work-alike (GNU) for a piece of proprietary software: Unix. Although GNU Emacs is not an imitation of part of Unix, it is part of this project. Apple is trying to make work-alikes illegal, by suing others for developing them. This is called a "look and feel" suit. Other companies that are trying this include Lotus and Ashton-Tate. You can do business as usual with them, and watch your freedom disappear. Or, you can fight to stop them. If you want to see a wide range of GNU software in the future, you should help fight them. (If you ever want to write a program compatible with an existing program, you should help fight them.) So join the Free Software Foundation in boycotting these companies. Don't buy a Macintosh. Don't develop software for the Macintosh. (If you already bought one, you could sell it to a non-programmer, so you won't feel pressure to develop anything for it.) Don't port existing software (such as GNU Emacs) to the Macintosh. Don't redistribute software for the Macintosh. Don't do anything that would make them easier or more attractive to use--as every businessman knows, those are the ways to promote sales. Status note: Apple is likely to lose this suit, but for a reason which is not particularly encouraging for us. These particular defendants had a previous license from Apple, and the judge ruled it covers most of the disputed issue. If Apple sues you or me, or if someone else follows their lead and sues you or me, we can't expect to have this way out. We still have a fight on our hands.
ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu (Christopher Davis) (10/15/89)
On 11 Oct 89 17:22:59 GMT, rms@AI.MIT.EDU said: rms> [basic "Boycott Apple!" message] Uh.... excuse me, but I thought we created gnu.misc.discuss/gnu-misc-discuss to keep this sort of message [from *either* side] out of the rest of the gnu.* groups and mailing lists. Followups set to gnu.misc.discuss. -- Christopher Davis, BU SMG '90 <ckd@bu-pub.bu.edu> <smghy6c@buacca.bitnet> "Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand."