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]-> /* ---------- */