Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie! martillo%mit-herac...@mit-athena.ARPA From: martillo%mit-herac...@mit-athena.ARPA Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Using Gnu Emacs (Clarification) Message-ID: <4440@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 08:06:50 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4440 Posted: Wed Jun 12 08:06:50 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Jun-85 07:27:41 EDT Sender: dae...@mit-eddi.UUCP Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 17 From: martillo%mit-herac...@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) I want to emphasize I am not telling people to stop using gnu emacs because of rumored legal hassles. I mean the sources of these rumors should either come up with something concrete to back up their statements or they should shut up. Until then we will continue to use gnu emacs. I should also like to point out that having looked at the internals of Montgomery Emacs (from ATT), CCA Emacs, Unipress (Gosling) Emacs and Gnu Emacs. CCA Emacs is a lot more like ATT Emacs than Gnu Emacs is like Unipress Emacs. An example of this both Montgomery and CCA emacs handle glob (*) via a backgroup shell process to which emacs is writing and from which emacs is reading. Actually, since Gnu Emacs contains a full implementation of Lisp (unlike Gosling Emacs), I would say that conceptually Gnu Emacs is more similar to Prime Emacs. Yakim Martillo
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!shane@mit-grape-nehi From: shane@mit-grape-nehi Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Using Gnu Emacs (Clarification) Message-ID: <4441@mit-eddie.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 08:36:47 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4441 Posted: Wed Jun 12 08:36:47 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 01:59:24 EDT Sender: dae...@mit-eddi.UUCP Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 15 From: shane@mit-grape-nehi (K. Shane Hartman) Not to mention the fact that there are only 6 or 7 files that have Gosling's name in them (for which RMS has permission to distribute) and if you run diff on Gnu and Unipress (or Gosling) sources the output fills reams of screens. I did this last night out of curiosity after your messages; the differences are significantly more than cosmetic. Anyone who had to ever go to another terminal to kill a Unipress emacs because the mucklisp ran rampant would know why `the sources of these rumors' are muttering about the best software system I have ever seen under Unix (a trademark of some giganto conglomerate whose name I have forgotten). -[Shane]->
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!z From: z...@masscomp.UUCP (Steve Zimmerman) Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Re: Using Gnu Emacs (Clarification) Message-ID: <721@masscomp.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 12:20:57 EDT Article-I.D.: masscomp.721 Posted: Mon Jun 17 12:20:57 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 04:39:13 EDT References: <4440@mit-eddie.UUCP> Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA Lines: 72 I expected some flames in reply to my mesage, and I must say, I'm not disappointed. I think it's time for me to clear up some misinformation about CCA EMACS being spread on the net, largely by Yakim Martillo. Since its release as a product, CCA EMACS has contained no code from Montgomery's EMACS. Early, free versions of CCA EMACS contained some of Montgomery's code (which was being freely distributed by other means and which had no indication in the sources that it was in any way proprietary). When CCA decided to sell EMACS as a product, it made inquiries at Bell Labs to make sure that they did not consider it proprietary. Bell Labs took several months studying the issue, during which time they discovered the widespread distribution of Montgomery's EMACS, and the fact that they had apparently not taken the necessary care to protect this code as demanded by trade secret law. Nevertheless, they informed CCA that they still considered the code to be proprietary, and CCA offered to remove Montgomery's code. Bell Labs accepted the offer, and the issue has been closed since then. There is also no evidence that Bell Labs was "unhappy" with either me or CCA; their correspondence with us always mentioned our productive past relationship, thanked us for cooperating fully with them and for our understanding of the matter, etc. In general, they seemed to be grateful that we took the time to check this situation out with them, and that we did not contest their claim of the proprietariness of Montgomery's code. > An example of this both Montgomery and CCA > emacs handle glob (*) via a backgroup shell process to which emacs is > writing and from which emacs is reading. This statement is patently false. There was no background shell process, no "glob" routine, nor anything else performing the same or similar functions in the version of Montgomery's EMACS (4.0) that I once used, which always ran as a single process and which is the only version I ever saw. These features were all completely original with me. Similarly, the statement about all the file names being the same is also false. For one thing, Montgomery's EMACS 4.0 had around twelve source files, while mine has had over sixty for several years. Now, it is known that my original hybrid of my EMACS and Montgomery's made its way to many Bell Labs sites. It appears that Mr. Martillo saw some of this code and thought it was Montgomery's, not realizing that much of it was mine. As it is, Mr. Martillo notes that he never saw a pure version of Montgomery's Emacs. On another note, RMS says that he got permission from Fen Labalme to distribute Gosling's Emacs (or portions thereof). When I was at Usenix, I talked to Unipress, and this is what RMS told them as well. However, according to Unipress, Labalme has no right to distribute Gosling's Emacs, and when RMS was confronted with this, he was unable to produce any written permission from either Gosling or Unipress. When I talked with Unipress, they felt that Gosling was clearly in violation of the law. (Note that copyright law covers "derivative works" as well as original source.) However, with GNU Emacs already distributed all over the place, they seemed to feel that trying to step in at this late date would probably be counterproductive. So, I gather that they will not press this issue. However, I would hope that RMS is more careful when it comes to the writing of GNU itself. As for "browbeating" people, what does RMS think I am suggesting? That everyone throw away their copy of GNU Emacs and forget that it ever existed? Not at all. It's simply that I'm sure that the creator of the original EMACS is intelligent enough to write an entire UNIX Emacs himself; under the circumstances, I hope he would do the honorable thing and rewrite from scratch those portions of GNU Emacs derived from Gosling's code. If he does not, I think a cloud will hang over the GNU project for some time to come. Steve Zimmerman MASSCOMP "The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of MASSCOMP, Uniworks, or anybody else."