Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site megatest Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh! mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135! timeinc!phri!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!megatest!fen From: fen@megatest (Fen Labalme) Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Whither GNU EMACS ? Message-ID: <18@megatest> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 20:31:06 EDT Article-I.D.: megatest.18 Posted: Wed Jun 26 20:31:06 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 07:11:44 EDT Organization: Megatest Corp., San Jose, CA Lines: 73 Originally posted on June 24, but the Megatest Mailer Monster ate it... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to try to shed some light on what has become the great GNU EMACS copyright debate. As many of you may know, Richard Stallman originally wrote EMACS around 1974. He did not charge for distributions. Rather, he insisted that users "join the EMACS software-sharing commune." EMACS was used extensively throughout the MIT and ARPA communities. Many similar editors exist: SINE, FINE, EINE, ZWEI, etc. While working on his thesis at CMU, Jim Gosling began work on FRED. Borrowing some ideas from Mike Kazar's FINE editor (notably the keymapping paradigm) he re-wrote the code to produce the first UNIX EMACS circa 1980. I received one of these early versions in 1981, and later, version #85 in May of 1982. I (and others) made many modifications to EMACS along the way. Most of these got sent back to JAG@CMU for incorporation into future rel- eases. As I had personal contact with several sites in California (decwrl, sun, ucb, Shasta, and others) I asked Jim if I could distribute my modifications directly. He granted me such permission in an informal (email) note. This note said that I could make releases, provided that I provided to each site a complete copy of his original code. My changes were to be released separately. As it happened, my release tapes contained two files: my version first followed by Jim's original version. On January 3, 1985, Fred Pack of UniPress contacted me, asking if I had permission to distribute EMACS and what the current state of my work was. I have since spent some time looking for the note that I received from Jim Gosling. As it is somewhere on a three year old dump tape, and we have a very large distributed system, I have not found it easy to locate. I am still looking for the note. On April 22, I talked to Jim about the matter. He remembered having given different distribution permissions to different people, but didn't recall what exactly he might have granted to me. He also stated that the real reason behind the copyright notice was to keep others from profiting from his work. It is inexplicable why Gosling's current statements differ from what he said to me. The spirit of the original UNIX distributions was very similar to that of Richard Stallman's. In fact, to quote frome Jim Gosling's "Unix Emacs" manual, dated May 1982: "Calling this editor EMACS is rather presumptious and even dangerous.... Unix Emacs was called EMACS in the hope that cries of outrage would be enough to goad the author and others to bring it up to the standards of what has come before." Now that we have done so (with GNU EMACS) I am surprised and dismayed that the loudest objections come from the author of this statement. As one of the "others" who helped to bring EMACS up to speed, I was distressed when Jim sold the editor to UniPress. This seemed to be a direct violation of the trust that I and others had placed in Jim as we sent him our improvements, modifications, and bug fixes. I am especially bothered by the general mercenary attitude surrounding EMACS which has taken over from the once proud "hacker" ethic -- EMACS is a tool that can make all of our lives better. Let's help it to grow! I have been striving to treat UniPress fairly. I have been in communication with them for the last 6 months, and have sent them 2 letters, neither of which have been answered to date. Instead, what I have gotten is a series of aspersions against me and the GNU project posted publicly in net.emacs. I feel that I have treated the parties involved honorably and have remained well within the bounds of the law at all times. I am currently awaiting a response from UniPress regarding an agreement that I sent to them several weeks ago. I will gladly keep the net informed as to developments regarding this matter. Fen Labalme -- From: Fen Labalme < megatest!fen@Shasta>