Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!info-vax
From: info...@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.info-vax
Subject: GNU is in the public domain
Message-ID: <8241@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 19:22:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8241
Posted: Mon Jun 17 19:22:28 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Jun-85 20:13:10 EDT
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 126

From: ima!inmet!tower@cca-unix

I submitted the INFO-VAX messages about GNU emacs to USENET's net.emacs
newsgroups.  The responses follow.  Seems GNU is clean, and fully in
the public domain.

Len Tower

/**** inmet:net.emacs / mirror!rs /  5:18 pm  Jun  6, 1985 ****/

RMS's work is based on a version of Gosling code that existed
before Unipress got it.  Gosling had put that code into the
public domain.  Any work taking off from the early Gosling
code is therefore also public domain.
/* ---------- */
/**** inmet:net.emacs / masscomp!z /  4:04 pm  Jun  9, 1985 ****/
> RMS's work is based on a version of Gosling code that existed
> before Unipress got it.  Gosling had put that code into the
> public domain.  Any work taking off from the early Gosling
> code is therefore also public domain.

This is completely contrary to Gosling's public statements.  Before he
made his arrangements with Unipress, Gosling's policy was that he would
send a free copy of his Emacs to anyone who asked, but he did not
(publicly, at least) give anyone else permission to make copies.  Once
Unipress started selling Gosling's Emacs, Gosling stopped distributing
free copies and still did not grant anyone else permission to make them;
instead, he suggested that people buy Emacs from Unipress.  All versions
of Gosling's Emacs distributed by him carry his copyright notice, and
therefore none of them are in the public domain.  Removing copyright
notices without the author's permission is, of course, illegal.  Now, a
quick check of my GNU Emacs sources shows that sure enough, a number of
files have Gosling's copyright notice in them.  What this all means is
that unless RMS got written permission from Gosling to distribute his
code, all copies of GNU Emacs constitute violations of the copyright
law.  All those people making such copies, including those people who
allow them to be copied off their machines, could each be liable for
large sums of money.  I think that RMS had better tell us if he has
Gosling's written permission to make these copies.  If so, why has he
not stated this earlier (preferably in the distribution itself) and
thereby cleared up a potentially major point of confusion?  If not, why
has he gone ahead and made many, many people liable for criminal
prosecution by recommending that they distribute this code without even
warning them of their liability?  (People who distribute this code would
be liable even if they claim that they didn't see Gosling's notices; the
fact that the notices are there is sufficient.  "Ignorance of the law is
no excuse.")

Now, I have nothing against free software; it's a free country and
people can do what they want.  It's just that people who do distribute
free software had better be sure that they have the legal right to do
so, or be prepared to face the consequences.

	Steven Zimmerman

"The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of Masscomp,
etc., etc."
/* ---------- */
/**** inmet:net.emacs / mit-eddie!rms /  4:14 am  Jun 10, 1985 ****/
From: Richard M. Stallman <rms@mit-prep>
Nobody has any reason to be afraid to use or distribute GNU
Emacs.

It is well known that I do not believe any software is
anyone's property.  However, for the GNU project, I decided
it was necessary to obey the law.  I have refused to look
at code I did not have permission to distribute.

About 5% of GNU Emacs is close to (though quite a bit
changed from) an old version of Gosling Emacs.  I am
distributing it for Fen Labalme, who received permission
from Gosling to distribute it.  It is therefore legal for me
to do so.  To be scrupulously legal, I put statements at the
front of the files concerned, describing this situation.

I don't see anything I should warn people about--except that
Zimmerman is going to try to browbeat them.
/* ---------- */
/**** inmet:net.emacs / mit-eddie!rms /  2:50 am  Jun 12, 1985 ****/
From: Richard M. Stallman <rms@mit-prep>
Karels@berkeley says that there is no restriction on distribution
of anything in 4.2 except that some parts of it are subject to
AT&T licensing because they contain AT&T code.

Berkeley does not say anything about which parts those are.
But Mark Linton, author of dbx, says that there is nothing in
dbx that is copied from AT&T code.  It follows that you can
give the source of dbx to anyone, even though Berkeley won't
officially promise this is true.
/* ---------- */
/**** inmet:net.emacs / mit-eddie!martillo%mit-heracles /  8:06 am  Jun 12, 1985 ****/
From: martillo%m...@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
/* ---------- */
/**** inmet:net.emacs / mit-eddie!shane /  8:36 am  Jun 12, 1985 ****/
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]->
/* ---------- */