earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (09/23/88)
Apple Computer Company has won the "honor" of having a file in the GNU
Emacs version 18.52 distribution named after them. (./etc/APPLE, this
is even better than SUNBUG, which I haven't read yet.) I include a
copy of the file below for those who do not have access to the GNU
Emacs files or the latest distribution of them.
Although I agree in principle with much of what the author is trying
to accomplish in this letter, he seems to have missed or ignored
something about Apple Computer and specifically the Macintosh. The
Macintosh is not a "better computer" than most of the competition, it
has better system software. What sells Macintoshes is NOT the
hardware, which is pretty nondescript except for a few innovative
components, but the graphical interface which is contained in ROM and
on the System Disks. Apple is selling software in the case of the
Macintosh, and when people buy one they are pretty much aware of this.
No matter that the guts of the software comes prepackaged in ROMs
where it is difficult to copy, it is still software that makes the
thing work the way it does.
Ownership of rights to software is a great deal more tenuous at
present than ownership of rights to hardware designs, and Apple is
taking steps in this lawsuit thing to establish just what the limits
of its rights to its own software are. I see nothing wrong with them
trying to do so, particularly since their investment in writing said
software must have been considerable. I say, this is a country where
the courts can decide, and they may be able to do a better job than
Richard Stallman et. al. Furthermore, if I buy any manufacturer's
computer, I am pretty sure I am feeding lawyers!
Well, that's my two cents worth. Now, for an amusing question:
In view of the GNU boycott of Apple, will A/UX 1.1 include GNU
Emacs 18.52, and if so will the file ./etc/APPLE come on the A/UX
distribution?
----------------------cut here----------------------
@unnumbered Special Report: Apple's New Look and Feel
You might have read about the new look-and-feel copyright lawsuit,
Apple vs. Hewlett Packard and Microsoft. Apple claims the power to
stop people from writing any program that works even vaguely like a
Macintosh. If they and other look-and-feel plaintiffs triumph, they
will use this new power over the public to put an end to free software
that could substitute for commercial software.
In the weeks after the suit was filed, USENET reverberated with
condemnation for Apple. GNU supporters Richard Stallman, John Gilmore, and
Paul Rubin decided to take action against Apple's no-longer-deserved
reputation as a force for progress. Apple's reputation comes from having
made better computers; but now, Apple is working to make all non-Apple
computers worse. If this deprives the public of the future work of many
companies, the harm done would be many times the good that any one company
does. Our hope was that if the user community realizes how destructive
Apple's present actions are, Apple would lose customers and have more
trouble finding employees.
Our method of action was to print 5000 buttons that say ``Keep Your Lawyers
Off My Computer'' and hand them out at the West Coast Computer Faire. The
center of the button shows the rainbow-apple logo with a Gigeresque mouth
full of ferocious teeth. The picture was drawn by Etienne Suvasa, who also
drew the cover for the GNU Emacs manual. We call the picture ``Apple's New
Look and Feel''.
We gave out nearly 4000 buttons at the show (saving the rest for
afterwards). The result was a great success: the extent of anger at Apple
was apparent to everyone at the show. Many of the invited speakers at the
show wore our buttons, spoke about them, or even waved them from the
podium. The press noticed this: at least one Macintosh user's magazine
carried a photo of the button afterwards.
Some of you may be considering using, buying, or recommending Macintoshes;
you might even be writing programs for them or thinking about it. Please
think twice and look for an alternative. Doing those things means more
success for Apple, and this could encourage Apple to persist in its
aggression. It also encourages other companies to try similar
obstructionism.
[It is because of this boycott that we don't include support for Macontosh
Unix in GNU software.]
You might think that your current project ``needs'' a Macintosh now. If
you find yourself thinking this way, consider the far future. You probably
plan to be alive a year or two from now, and working on some other project.
You will want to get good computers for that, too. But an Apple monopoly
could easily make the price of such computers at that time several times
what it would otherwise be. Your decision to use some other kind of
machine, or to defer your purchases now, might make sure that the machines
your next project needs are affordable when you need them.
Newspapers report that Macintosh clones will be available soon. If
you must buy a Macintosh-like machine, buy a clone. Don't feed the
lawyers!
----------------------cut here----------------------
Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755
(603) 643-4109
Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to threerms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (09/24/88)
Ownership of rights to software is a great deal more tenuous at
present than ownership of rights to hardware designs, and Apple is
taking steps in this lawsuit thing to establish just what the limits
of its rights to its own software are.
A neutral businessman might well want to "establish what the limits
are". But when applied to Apple, this is the half-truth that is as
bad as a complete falsehood. You might as well say that Hitler
attacked Poland for the innocent goal of "establishing what the
boundaries of Germany would be", or that Meese just wanted to
"establish the limits of where the government can restrict speech".
What Apple is trying to do is define new kinds of "ownership" of the
activities of other people--to gain a new sort of permanent monopoly
never before allowed. If they succeed, we will lose the freedom to
develop systems such as GNU.
The courts may save us, but we mustn't leave this up to chance. This
is why we are working on an amicus brief.
Regardless of what the court says, a boycott can make a difference.
Given any particular chance of winning, a company will be less likely
to sue if they know this would create ill will among the public.
I hope everyone who values GNU software will fight to preserve our
right to produce it.
Furthermore, if I buy any manufacturer's
computer, I am pretty sure I am feeding lawyers!
In other words, all companies are equally bullies? I don't think this
is so. Not all companies agree with Apple, and only a few are
actively attacking us as Apple is doing.jjd@bbn.com (James J Dempsey) (09/24/88)
In article <10152@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >Apple Computer Company has won the "honor" of having a file in the GNU >Emacs version 18.52 distribution named after them. (./etc/APPLE, this >is even better than SUNBUG, which I haven't read yet.) I include a >copy of the file below for those who do not have access to the GNU >Emacs files or the latest distribution of them. > ... >Well, that's my two cents worth. Now, for an amusing question: > > In view of the GNU boycott of Apple, will A/UX 1.1 include GNU > Emacs 18.52, and if so will the file ./etc/APPLE come on the A/UX > distribution? > I'm pretty sure I remember the original copying notice which came with GNU Emacs said that anyone who distributed EMACS must distribute the entire thing including source code. If this were true, it would require apple to distribute etc/APPLE. However, I just read the 18.52 version of etc/COPYING and it seems a little more liberal. I read it that they could distribute a subset of the distribution as long as they say which files they changed and supply the entire distribution to anyone who asks for it. I hope that this can be worked out because I *love* GNU Emacs and I would find A/UX without GNU Emacs a lot less attractive. I have brought up GNU Emacs 18.52 under A/UX 1.0. Even though RMS won't put these changes into the distribution, I'll mail the modifications to anyone who wants them. I think that in the long run, Apple will be hurt by using proprietary interfaces and that when viable alternatives (NeXT's AIX interface?, Open Look?) are available which are defacto standards and aren't propriatary, Apple will lose business by sticking to their proprietary interface. Hopefully, they will see the light by then and RMS will remove his restriction and support GNU software on Apple products. I hope. --Jim Dempsey-- BBN Communications jjd@bbn.com (ARPA Internet) ..!{decvax, harvard, wjh12, linus}!bbn!jjd
shibumi@well.UUCP (Kenton A. Hoover) (09/25/88)
>entire thing including source code. If this were true, it would >interfaces and that when viable alternatives (NeXT's AIX interface?, >Open Look?) are available which are defacto standards and aren't >propriatary, Apple will lose business by sticking to their proprietary >interface. Hopefully, they will see the light by then and RMS will >remove his restriction and support GNU software on Apple products. > As my mother always told me, de-facto standards are those standards which people choose to use, not those that choose to call themselves such. Also, de-facto standards pretty much require that the standard be available for public review, which is not true of the supposed NeXT AIX interface... -- ! Kenton A. Hoover {hoptoad,hplabs,lll-lcc,ptsfa}!well!shibumi ! ! SNAIL: 535 Pacific Avenue ! ! Aria International San Francisco, CA 94133 ! ! "Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb!" !
pswisnov@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Peter S. Wisnovsky) (09/26/88)
In article <8809231927.AA00737@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: >Regardless of what the court says, a boycott can make a difference. >Given any particular chance of winning, a company will be less likely >to sue if they know this would create ill will among the public. I see your point, but wonder who this boycott will hurt more, the company or the users. Apple is a corperate entity whose function is to make a profit: it is not clear to me that a boycott will convince enough people to buy other computers to make Apple feel that a change in policy is necessary. As a user of Gnu software and Apple computers, however, I, and I imagine many others, would naturally be dissappointed if Gnu software were not available on Apple computers. It seems to me that this sort of boycott is similar to the issue of divestment from South Africa, in that it is not clear whether the boycott is a weapon with a sufficiently narrow focus. I support divestment, but I recognize that we will undoubtedly hurt those we are trying to help. -- + Peter Wisnovsky pswisnov@phoenix.princeton.edu BitNet: pswisnov@pucc +
earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (09/26/88)
In article <8809231927.AA00737@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: > > Ownership of rights to software is a great deal more tenuous at > present than ownership of rights to hardware designs, and Apple is > taking steps in this lawsuit thing to establish just what the limits > of its rights to its own software are. > [Interesting parallel to activities of Hitler and Meese.] > >What Apple is trying to do is define new kinds of "ownership" of the >activities of other people--to gain a new sort of permanent monopoly >never before allowed. If they succeed, we will lose the freedom to >develop systems such as GNU. > On the contrary, Apple is trying to establish the limits of the rights of Apple Computer Company over their own products, developed by Apple Computer Company at great expense, I might add. It is only natural for a company which writes software for profit to want to restrict the copying of said software, and to want to find out more precisely what the legal definition of "copying" might be. Apple's decision to disallow cloning of the Macintosh is surely an unpopular one, but if they should establish the legal right to do so, then they have also established greater protection for the products of others' creative efforts, and not the reverse. If this means that one cannot freely copy another's products, and that the original creator of an artistic work or useful thing has fairly broad rights over those who wish to duplicate it, then as a programmer I would welcome Apple's success in this matter. Sure it is morally superior to give away what I have done, but I don't think I would like to be forced to by law. I do not know what the results of thing might be, but if your rights somehow conflict with those of Apple Computer Company or with mine, then that is why we have courts in this country, to resolve these differences. I can imagine that possible success for Apple in this matter might provide me with greater control over my own work, and with the freedom to perhaps do things which others might find unpopular. Perhaps someday I will write a truly wonderful program, or design a computer with incredible capabilities. Perhaps I might even want to become the exclusive disributor of the thing, to the great dismay of those who would like to benefit from my creative efforts. Too bad for them! >I hope everyone who values GNU software will fight to preserve our >right to produce it. > I hope everyone who makes a living from the fruits of his own creative efforts will make an attempt to understand both sides of this complicated question. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three
rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (09/26/88)
Perhaps I might even
want to become the exclusive disributor of the thing, to the great
dismay of those who would like to benefit from my creative efforts.
Too bad for them!
In my opinion, the thing that makes creative efforts desirable is that
people can benefit from them. I hope everyone who can make creative
efforts will aim to benefit humanity rather than for so petty a goal
as to "make a living" (a euphemism for "become a yuppie").
I hope that, if you ever make any creative efforts that are useful,
you will do as I do: encourage people to benefit from them, and thus
bring about the most possible benefit.
To judge from the his message, though, it doesn't seem likely that Mr.
Horton will do this. Instead, he is more likely to say, "Too bad for
everyone but me!" Look at this sly liguistic subterfuge:
On the contrary, Apple is trying to establish the limits of the
rights of Apple Computer Company over their own products
Since the subject of the discussion is a program that resembles a
Macintosh and wasn't written by Apple, he has here *defined* such
programs, no matter who writes them, as being "Apple's own products"
(because only thus can this statement be about the subject at hand).
In other words, he has implicitly presumed the truth of Apple's side
in the controversy, while pretending to be neutral.
It is only
natural for a company which writes software for profit to want ...
to find out more
precisely what the legal definition of "copying" might be.
Are we to believe that Apple is neutral as well? You don't think
Apple is trying to influence the outcome?
Apple's attempt to define programs that HP, or I, write as "Apple's
own product" is something I am determined to fight. I am sad that
Horton is on Apple's side. With such an ally, they will be hard to
beat. But I won't surrender just yet.
My previous message got two replies from people who wanted to help
fund the amicus brief. If you are interested in this, the person
organizing it is well!rogue@lll-crg.arpa.
I have also spoken with the lawyer defending Paperback Software
against Lotus. He is looking for people who know the details of
the history of the development of spreadsheets and can testify
about them. Send me mail if you think you can help.earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (09/26/88)
In article <8809260004.AA02196@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: >In my opinion, the thing that makes creative efforts desirable is that >people can benefit from them. I hope everyone who can make creative >efforts will aim to benefit humanity rather than for so petty a goal >as to "make a living" (a euphemism for "become a yuppie"). > Perhaps you would like to explain to my wife, three children, and creditors just exactly what is so bad about making a living. It is perhaps more true than not that any creative things which I might produce are owed to the rest of humanity by virtue of what humanity has given me. This is different from saying that anyone who has the ability to copy what I do has unlimited license to do so for their own profit. >I hope that, if you ever make any creative efforts that are useful, >you will do as I do: encourage people to benefit from them, and thus >bring about the most possible benefit. > I most probably will. But the thought of being forced to do so by public opinion, law, or your beliefs turns my stomach. I do not necessarily admire what Apple is doing, or how they choose to prevent the existence of clones, but I feel that they have some right to do so, and that I would expect to have the same rights in the same situation. >To judge from the his message, though, it doesn't seem likely that Mr. >Horton will do this. Instead, he is more likely to say, "Too bad for >everyone but me!" Look at this sly liguistic subterfuge: > > On the contrary, Apple is trying to establish the limits of the > rights of Apple Computer Company over their own products > >Since the subject of the discussion is a program that resembles a >Macintosh and wasn't written by Apple, he has here *defined* such >programs, no matter who writes them, as being "Apple's own products" >(because only thus can this statement be about the subject at hand). Is the subject of the discussion a program that "resembles" a Macintosh by pure coincidence, or is it something that is partially or wholly a "copy" of a Macintosh? If it is, indeed, a "copy" of a Macintosh, isn't there some remote possibility that Apple Computer Company has rights here which are being violated? I honestly do not know the answer to these questions, but we would not find out by bullying Apple into dropping their lawsuit, even were this to be possible. > >In other words, he has implicitly presumed the truth of Apple's side >in the controversy, while pretending to be neutral. > I do not implicitly presume the truth of Apple's side of the controversy. I do, however, imagine that there are questions here which have answers that are not so obvious to me as they appear to be to you. > It is only > natural for a company which writes software for profit to want ... > to find out more > precisely what the legal definition of "copying" might be. > >Are we to believe that Apple is neutral as well? You don't think >Apple is trying to influence the outcome? > Did I state that Apple was neutral in this issue? I believe that I stated that Apple might want to determine the extent to which they own technology which they have developed. Of course they would do so out of selfish reasons, to find out how much money they can make from what they have done. Are you trying to make it sound as if I imply that Apple is doing this out of altruistic or scientific reasons? Who is guilty of linguistic subterfuge here? I do not for a microsecond imagine that Apple is doing this for anything other than for the benefit of their stockholders. I do not even assume that they are right to do this. I will even allow that Apple Computer Company is guilty of "software hoarding." Software hoarding is not yet a crime in this country, however. Until it becomes one, I support the right of software companies, artists, and writers to decide who will benefit from the fruits of their creative works. I support Apple's right to define their own turf. I live in the country. I like to hike, camp out, and sometimes even to fish and hunt. I despise "No Trespassing" signs with about the same intensity with which you seem to despise software sold for profit. I might even hate the people who put up such signs. I always honor the signs, however, because it is better to live in a country where law is respected than to live in one where it is not. >Apple's attempt to define programs that HP, or I, write as "Apple's >own product" is something I am determined to fight. I am sad that >Horton is on Apple's side. With such an ally, they will be hard to >beat. But I won't surrender just yet. I am not on "Apple's side" as you say. But I do hold that Apple has some legal rights which they may have cause to believe have been violated. I support the right of anyone who believes his rights to have been violated to seek remedy in a court of law, and I even support the right of a large, perhaps unpopular, corporation to do so. Please stop accusing me of pretending to be neutral because I do not come out and say "Apple is right and they will win." Apple may not be right. They may not win. They, do, however, have cause to go to court. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three
jmr@nada.kth.se (Jan Michael Rynning) (09/26/88)
In article <10172@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >[lots of text removed] If this means that one cannot >freely copy another's products, and that the original creator of an >artistic work or useful thing has fairly broad rights over those who >wish to duplicate it, then as a programmer I would welcome Apple's >success in this matter. Sure it is morally superior to give away what >I have done, but I don't think I would like to be forced to by law. > > I do not know what the results of thing might be, but if your >rights somehow conflict with those of Apple Computer Company or with >mine, then that is why we have courts in this country, to resolve >these differences. The result will be that some of the programs you thought were yours, no longer are, because someone else holds the copyright. You may even have to pay damages for programs you wrote five or ten years ago. > I can imagine that possible success for Apple in >this matter might provide me with greater control over my own work, >and with the freedom to perhaps do things which others might find >unpopular. Perhaps someday I will write a truly wonderful program, or >design a computer with incredible capabilities. Perhaps I might even >want to become the exclusive disributor of the thing, to the great >dismay of those who would like to benefit from my creative efforts. >Too bad for them! If your program/computer turns out to be a success, companies with zillions of bucks, and tons of lawyers and copyrights will sue you for copyright infringement, sure as hell. And if you don't have the zillions of bucks to stand up against them, you'll lose. You spent years of creativity and hard work on your program/computer, and one day it's no longer yours. Too bad for you! >[more text removed] Jan Michael Rynning, jmr@nada.kth.se Department of Numerical Analysis If you can't fully handle domains: and Computing Science, ARPA: jmr%nada.kth.se@uunet.uu.net Royal Institute of Technology, UUCP: {uunet,mcvax,...}!nada.kth.se!jmr S-100 44 Stockholm, BITNET: jmr@sekth Sweden. Phone: +46-8-7906288
"SDRRTR::PSI%PRSRTR::PSI%SCRVX2::BLUE::IN%\"'m_mailnow::m_sdr::davis'@scr-gateway\""@sdr.slb.com (09/27/88)
To throw in my two-cents worth: I personally feel that Earl is pretty much in the right here inasmuch as Apple have a very legitimate right to determine via legal means how much of a restriction they can place on the rest of us. I don't like their implicit reasons for doing so, but the right is theirs to use as they wish. At the same time, I am saddened and disappointed that we do not live in a world where rms' ideas are sufficiently widespread as to make this kind of thing irrelevant. I wish that we did not attempt to view intellectual property in the same light as material belongings and that we could all take pleasure in seeing others using, developing and hopefully improving our own efforts. In the long run, we all benefit from such an approach. Sadly, Apple do not seem to take this approach. I understand the motives behind their action: it must be nice to make so much money from such simple ideas as the Mac, and I do believe that they have every right to take the issue to court - I just hope they lose, and that in the meantime, the rest of us can continue to believe in developing software for all of us, because we love doing that more than we love making money. To be honest, I'd rather be a something-else-by-day and a good hacker by night than the professional programmer I am, but that I am not is a consequence of my own particular situation. I like making money - at times, I don't even mind be branded a yuppie (though I prefer "guppie" (Green Urban Professional)) - but I do dislike doing so via something where my main satisfaction is non-financial. It feels like it will ultimately corrupt the very thing I enjoy at the moment ... So, lets not get hysterical, lets apply the same desire to share and progress to this issue and maybe some good will come of it. Sad not to have GNU on our new II's though ... Paul
km@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU (Ken Mitchum) (09/27/88)
Well, since MicroEmacs and Jove are in the same spirit as GNU emacs, perhaps we should destroy all copies of the Mac versions of these programs. Ken Mitchum Decision Systems Labs km@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu
ogus@math.Berkeley.EDU (Arthur E. Ogus) (09/27/88)
I agree with rms, and am appalled by Apple's suit. I hope they lose. However, the fact is that I am stuck with a Macintosh II for my use at home, and presumably will be for several years. (The reasons for this are not so important, but not atypical--I work in a group of several people, two of whom already owned Mac's, and it seemed important for all of us to get the same computer. Funds had to be spent (and delivery completed) by a certain date. Furthermore, the purchase was made before Apple announced its suit.) The upshot is that it is pretty much impossible for me to boycott Apple at this stage--except, for example, by not purchasing A/UX. Since I would dearly love to get GNU or at least GNU Emacs running at home, I will be badly hurt by any concerted effort to block the porting of FSF software to the Macintosh. Even if you want encourage people not to purchase Apple hardware in the future, please don't be too hard on "innocents" like me. --
rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (09/27/88)
Even if you want
encourage people not to purchase Apple hardware in the future,
please don't be too hard on "innocents" like me.
A victory for Apple would wipe out a large amount of future GNU
software. The result would be that everyone would have the same
trouble you are complaining about now, only much worse and
permanently. This is what I am fighting to prevent.
I'm sorry this fight inconveniences you, but I think it would be wrong
to stop fighting against permanent defeat for all software-sharers,
just to spare you for the duration of the war. I hope you can think
of your inconvenience as your contribution to stopping Apple.ewerlid@kuling.UUCP (Ove Ewerlid) (09/27/88)
Article 70 of gnu.emacs: earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: > ..... Sure it is morally superior to give away what >I have done, but I don't think I would like to be forced to by law. I agree, it's morally superior to give away what one has done, especially if there is an overall yield. In article <10174@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: > I most probably will. But the thought of being forced to do so >by public opinion, law, or your beliefs turns my stomach. ........ The concept of being forced to give away ones creative work is frightening, if this ever becomes reallity one might as well bail out. (No p-shute please) This seems to be one of the main points in your arguing. The problem is that no-one is ACTIVELY trying to enforce such morbid laws. People are simply moving against something that might force people to give up being creative.
jym@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Jym Dyer) (09/28/88)
The American ideal of freedom is encompassed in the concept of liberty,
which is defined as the right to do anything you want provided you don't
infringe on others' rights. And those rights include the right to do
anything you want provided you don't infringe on others' rights. And
those rights . . . (STACK OVERFLOW)
A conflict is inherent in the concept of liberty, when two people want
the freedom to do things that are mutually exclusive. We have such a
conflict here, which seems to me to be between the freedom to create
similar software and the freedom to make as much money in the short
term as legally possible (which involves expanding the definition of
"legally possible").
It seems that a vocal segment of our society is obsessed with the latter
freedom, holding it higher than many other freedoms (including the rights
to breathable air, drinkable water, edible food, the use of recording
equipment, and giving food to the homeless in San Francisco). I find
this a very narrow and foolish view.
EMACS (the original) was the best editor in the world. GNU Emacs is now
the best editor in the world. Both editors were distributed freely, and
they're the best. And let me tell you something---all the best hacking
comes from environments where sharing goes on.
(People working in big companies know this; they can share to some extent
with a large community. I used to work at DEC; it was a happy place where
everyone---save a few cranky types and inter-departmental empire-builders
--shared code with each other. But some of the best shared code came
from outside of the company, and some of the best hackers would go to
lengths to make some code available outside the company.)
And while EMACS and GNU Emacs didn't make scads of money in a short time,
they proved to be quite valuable in the long run. I just met an impossible
and profitable deadline because of GNU Emacs. The programs involved use
code available free as part of DECUS C as well as code developed from
ideas in code from DECUS C. Like Mr. Horton, I have a family to feed
and creditors to pay. Free software has made a large contribution to
that end.
As the originators of the Macintosh software, Apple made a large amount of
money. One could agree that they deserve a large amount of money. But
when does the profiteering end? I say the profiteering should, indeed
*must* end when it starts to impinge on the freedom to create, learn,
and explore.
Suppose, intrigued by the Macintosh's "desktop" approach to an interface,
I write one too. I'd learn alot. Perhaps I'd make a better implementa-
tion. I'd share the program, and it would simultaneously teach things
to others and pick up enhancements. Perhaps the learning and enhanc-
ing would provide the basis for a revolutionary *new* interface.
Or perhaps Apple would slap a "look and feel" lawsuit on me and we'll
stay stuck in 1985.
* * *
We have Macs in our office. They're used mostly as spreadsheets and to
make memos. I'm installing TeX on our other machines to reduce the demand
on the Macs and thus reduce the demand to buy new ones. Anyone else have
boycott ideas?
Remember this handy hint: Boycott California grapes and Apple!
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Boycott, Icelandic fish, General Electric, and light tuna while you're
at it. :-)jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) (09/28/88)
In article <8809281259.AA01792@prep.ai.mit.edu>, jym@PREP (Jym Dyer) writes: >EMACS (the original) was the best editor in the world. GNU Emacs is now > the best editor in the world. Both editors were distributed freely, and > they're the best. And let me tell you something---all the best hacking > comes from environments where sharing goes on. Suppose Apple "wins". What should RMS (or MIT maybe?) do with all the companies that have infringed on the EMACS' "look and feel"? Why didn't Ford sue Chevy over the "look and feel" of the automoblle? [or do I have the order backward here] This month's "Digital Review" in rumormonger Charlie Matco's article: "My eagerness was spawned by having just viewed the version 2 field-test release of DECwindows. I was astonished at just how Maclike it made working with a VAX. "First off, the physical layout of DEC's windows, complete with scroll bars that appear when more data exists than can be displayed on screen, was virtually identical to the Mac's. Then there was the launching of files by double-clicking on the mouse [...]. And to top it off, the icons used in the paint program apeared identical to those in MacPaint. "How could DEC possibly avoid a lawsuit, I asked. Judging by the litigious salvos between Hewlett-Packard and Apple, it seemed the romance between DEC and Apple would be stormy at best. "'Ah,' my lawyer friend solemnly intoned, 'what you must ask is "What did DEC get out of the arrangement with Apple?" since every legal agreement has a quid pro quo. Apple got a VAX as a server platform, so DEC must have been given something in return,' he postulated. 'That something just might be an agreement not to take any legal action against DEC concerning DECwindows.'" Interesting. Now since DEC windows is really X windows, which is copyrighted by MIT and redistributable, does the purported agreement cover all X-derived things? Will X be the thing that sinks Apple even if they "win"? Has DEC really pulled a fast one? Re: boycotts. The supposed basis (RMS' words) of the suit is to increase the value of Apple to its owners. Stock value is a very finicky thing; stocks over-react a lot to news tidbits. I think a boycott with enough visibility might have a chance at working here. The situation with South Africa has parallels. I think the pullouts of at least some US companies may have been motivated in just such ways. Pullouts may, in turn, hurt the people they are supposed to help *in the short run*; the situation is a lot different from Apple et al because countries not companies are involved, and fervent belief in a political end will support an untenable position long past when it becomes economically painful. Also, most whites in SA still expect that they have more krugerrands to lose by sharing power than by keeping it to themselves. Another interesting tidbit from DR: "Claiming VMS Meets OSF Goals, Olsen Rocks Unix Industry Boat "CANNES, France --- VMS is more compliant with the specifications of the Open Software Foundation (OSF) than any other operating system available today, DEC President Kenneth Olsen said ..." ... and goes on to talk about whether OSF is supposed to be tied to AIX or other Unix-derived OS's. Now, this is starting to sound familiar. It's getting to be like the overused term "OSI-compliant". OSI is a *model* of two communicating systems. *Any* communication can be modeled using it, so the compliance claim is vacuous. Sounds like OSF could become another such bandwagon. "GNU is OSF-compliant". How's that sound? -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (09/29/88)
In article <10152@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>, earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) posts from GNU stuff: > Some of you may be considering using, buying, or recommending Macintoshes; > you might even be writing programs for them or thinking about it. Please > think twice and look for an alternative. Doing those things means more > success for Apple, and this could encourage Apple to persist in its > aggression. It also encourages other companies to try similar > obstructionism. > > [It is because of this boycott that we don't include support for Macontosh > Unix in GNU software.] Yeah, Apple sure is the evil empire. I think if GNU boycotts all companies that sue others, GNU will be GNP--Gnu's Not Ported. Come on. Is this lawsuit so much more evil than others that get filed all the time? Does Apple deserve a "boycott" any more than those companies? I guess by "alternative" you mean IBM products? I like this thinking :-|. > But an Apple monopoly > could easily make the price of such computers at that time several times > what it would otherwise be. What Apple monopoly? You mean the monopoly on Apple computers? They've had that all along. Now that they've filed a lawsuit they're a monopoly?! Wake up, wildebeests. -- Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA sullivan@vsi.com Just say to yourself over and over, "President Quayle". I can't do more than 2.
julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) (09/29/88)
In article <12519@duke.cs.duke.edu> crm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) writes: <Look: this is comp.emacs. This is a technical group. It is for <discussions of emacs. It isn't for discussions for grape boycotts, <Apple boycotts, fish boycotts, and light tuna boycotts. So push off. < <And while we're at it, keep this crap in the politically correct gnu <groups. While I don't care for such discussion in a technical newsgroup just as much as you don't, I didn't know any politically correct gnu newsgroups existed. Where would you recommend? In article <14751@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes: <Is it time for a gnu.policy or gnu.copyleft list??? Seconded. How about gnu.misc or gnu.general or gnu.politics or gnu.talk? Shall we move the motion to news.groups or gnu.config or wherever, folks? -=- julian julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!ucsd!nosc!uhccux!julian julian@uhccux.bitnet
usenet@cps3xx.UUCP (Usenet file owner) (09/29/88)
in article <2440@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) says: > > In article <12519@duke.cs.duke.edu> crm@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) writes: > In article <14751@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes: > <Is it time for a gnu.policy or gnu.copyleft list??? > > Seconded. How about gnu.misc or gnu.general or gnu.politics or Thirded. <grin> ____________________________________________________________________ Robert L. Raisch A. H. Case Center for Computer Aided Design / Computer Aided Manufacturing, Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan -- raisch@msudoc.egr.msu.edu --
jeff@lorrie.atmos.washington.edu (Jeff Bowden) (09/30/88)
Someone *please* correct me if I'm wrong but a) doesn't the Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit involve more than just 'look and feel'. It was my impression that they (Apple) were basing their claims in part on some abuses they claim Microsoft committed against their agreement. b) shouldn't we leave gnu.emacs out of the Newsgroups line?
wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu (Pierce T. Wetter) (10/01/88)
>a) doesn't the Apple vs. Microsoft lawsuit involve more than just 'look and > feel'. It was my impression that they (Apple) were basing their claims > in part on some abuses they claim Microsoft committed against their > agreement. My own personal theory: Apple in '85 is in dismal shape. Massive layoffs, large inventories, etc. Microsoft, the number one software house in the country, decides they want to release a graphical interface for DOS. Apple says NO you cant copy the mac, do it some other way. Bill gates who gave Apple some feedback on the mac interface and therefore thinks he owns 50% of the code (wouldn't it be a strange world if all your beta testers had a share of your copyright) says ok, then I'm never going to produce anything else for the mac, or update MS-Word (Notice the provison in the Apple-MS contract that MS has to update MS-Word). Since at this point in time, such an annnouncement would have driven Apple into bankruptcy, Apple capitulates. Hence we get Windows, a bad copy of the Mac Interface. Thus, MS commits the ultimate in software hoarding: driving companies out of business by withholding software. Apple is now the Good Guy, seeking to protect other companies from the likes of MS. (Perhaps that's why Jobs is going to Unix/Mach) Apple's legal strategy: The Apple, MS contract was signed under duress and therefore null and void. MS is therefore guilty of using whatever it was the Apple contract gave them the rights to use, and HP is an unfortunate bystander. THEN AGAIN, I COULD BE WRONG. Pierce ---------------------------------------------------------------- wetter@tybalt.caltech.edu pwetter@caltech.bitnet pwetter@caltech.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------- Weird theory #47: Islamic women can do kinky things with their ankles, that's why the Koran says they aren't supposed to reveal them in public.
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (10/02/88)
/ gnu.emacs / rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) / Sep 25, 1988 / >My previous message got two replies from people who wanted to help >fund the amicus brief. If you are interested in this, the person >organizing it is well!rogue@lll-crg.arpa. What IS an amicus brief? Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,att}!nucsrl!gore