Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 SMI; site unipress.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!
seismo!columbia!topaz!unipress!mg
From: mg@unipress.uucp (Mike Gallaher)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <104@unipress.uucp>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 15:19:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: unipress.104
Posted: Thu Aug 1 15:19:33 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 05:20:13 EDT
Organization: Unipress Software, Highland Park NJ
Lines: 37
From: rms@mit-prep
Date: 27 Jun 85 11:58:34 GMT
Unfortunately, this will delay the the time you receive the GNU Emacs
manual. I'm sure Unipress is happy to have accomplished that.
Software sharers are happy if you get good software. Software-hoarding
organizations such as Unipress and CCA are looking for ways they can
restrict you, because each restriction they can manage to impose means
more pressure on you to pay them. If there is an alternative to paying
them, they want to close it off.
Some people working on the Gnu project obviously feel that they are at odds
with UniPress, and that UniPress is doing everything in its power to damage
them. If making UniPress be the bad guys, and imagining yourself to be
pitted against them for the good of all mankind, gives you the impetus you
need to write good software, it seems to have worked - Gnumacs is a
fantastic editor. I suppose every cause needs a nemesis, but please
choose one that is really on the other side.
UniPress has no quarrel with the Gnu project. It bothers me that people
seem to think we are trying to hinder it. In fact, we hardly did or said
much at all, except to point out that the Gnumacs code had James Gosling's
copyright in it. We have not done anything to keep anyone from using
Gnumacs, nor do we intend to now that it is "Gosling-free" (version
16.56).
You can consider this to be an official statement from UniPress: There is
nothing in Gnumacs version 16.56 that could possibly cause UniPress to get
upset. If you were afraid to use Gnumacs because you thought we would
hassle you, don't be, on the basis of version 16.56.
Can we all please get back to our work now, and stop arguing about
copyright law???
mg
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!ihnp1!ihnp4!
inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <11600003@ccvaxa>
Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 00:06:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.11600003
Posted: Mon Aug 5 00:06:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 10:26:49 EDT
References: <104@unipress.uucp>
Lines: 9
Nf-ID: #R:unipress.uucp:-10400:ccvaxa:11600003:000:266
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece Aug 4 23:06:00 1985
Could we have a little applause, please, for Unipress for issuing
a direct, succinct statement about the status of Gosling-free Emacs.
They were under no particular legal or moral obligation to do so.
--
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
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!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mly@mit-prep
From: mly@mit-prep
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <4919@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 12:34:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4919
Posted: Fri Aug 9 12:34:31 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 23:08:40 EDT
Sender: daemon@mit-eddi.UUCP
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 16
From: Richard Mlynarik <mly@mit-prep>
Could we have a little applause, please, for Unipress for issuing
a direct, succinct statement about the status of Gosling-free Emacs.
They were under no particular legal or moral obligation to do so.
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
mg (who posted it, and maintains gosmacs) is a cool person, and
probably has a lot to do with keeping the corporate cretins at bay.
(At least as far as gnu is concerned) So let's hear it for Mike at least.
However, I think that you will find that Unipress itself is as slimey as
any other corporation in the business --- don't let one good
impression spoil their image! =;-)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!h-sc1!edwards
From: edwards@h-sc1.UUCP (william edwards)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <521@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 20:03:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.521
Posted: Sun Aug 11 20:03:44 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 00:47:19 EDT
References: <4919@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Reply-To: edwards@h-sc1.UUCP (william edwards)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 27
Keywords: "slimy"?
In article <4919@mit-eddie.UUCP> mly@mit-prep writes:
>However, I think that you will find that Unipress itself is as slimey as
>any other corporation in the business --- don't let one good
>impression spoil their image! =;-)
DISCLAIMER:
The following does not represent anyone's opinion but my own.
It does not reflect the official stance of Harvard University.
FLAME:
I guess mly's comments are more fallout from the great Gosling
code controversy, but I find them unhelpful and unconstructive. Just
what does he mean by "slimy"? Is he accusing Unipress of illegal or
immoral acts? If he is, he had better either substantiate what he says
with hard facts, or not express such opinions in "print" (yes, this
arguably "printed material" you're reading). Such remarks veer close
to libel. GNU is not going to help its cause by indiscriminately
calling people or companies "slimy".
These remarks have no bearing on what I think of GNUemacs or of
the GNU project as a whole. GNUemacs is a fantastic editor, and the
cause of a public-domain UNIX is a noble one. Let's not endanger that
cause with useless acrimony.
Bill Edwards
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!jla
From: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <624@usl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 00:33:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.624
Posted: Tue Aug 27 00:33:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 18:12:51 EDT
References: <4919@mit-eddie.UUCP> <521@h-sc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux)
Organization: University of (SW) Louisiana
Lines: 29
Keywords: "slimy"?
Summary:
In article <521@h-sc1.UUCP> edwards@h-sc1.UUCP (william edwards) writes:
>
> FLAME:
>
> I guess mly's comments are more fallout from the great Gosling
> code controversy, but I find them unhelpful and unconstructive. Just
> what does he mean by "slimy"? Is he accusing Unipress of illegal or
> immoral acts? If he is, he had better either substantiate what he says
> with hard facts, or not express such opinions in "print" (yes, this
> arguably "printed material" you're reading). Such remarks veer close
> to libel. GNU is not going to help its cause by indiscriminately
> calling people or companies "slimy".
The Unipress-GNU controversey has already begun to recede into the back
of my mind, but I seem to recall reports to the effect that Unipress
was considering some form of action against GNU. Anyway, SOMEthing must
have prompted RMS to re-write the code. If it was not Unipress, then it
must have been the volume of articles suggesting that there were grounds
for legal action. While RMS' action was perhaps the best possible answer
to the controversey, it seems rather "slimy" to me that he was indeed forced
to do so.
Such unpalatable affairs are only useful in that they further illuminate
the worthy goals of the Freeware project.
--
Joe Arceneaux
Lafayette, LA
{akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla
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!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!
hoxna!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!tower@mit-prep
From: tower@mit-prep
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <5112@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 14:20:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.5112
Posted: Mon Aug 26 14:20:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 20:32:54 EDT
Sender: daemon@mit-eddi.UUCP
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 35
From: Leonard H. Tower Jr. <tower@mit-prep>
In Article-I.D.: usl.624
usl!jla@mit-eddie (Joe Arceneaux) writes:
> The Unipress-GNU controversey has already begun to recede into the back
> of my mind, but I seem to recall reports to the effect that Unipress
> was considering some form of action against GNU. Anyway, SOMEthing must
> have prompted RMS to re-write the code. If it was not Unipress, then it
> must have been the volume of articles suggesting that there were grounds
> for legal action. While RMS' action was perhaps the best possible answer
> to controversey, it seems rather "slimy" to me that he was indeed forced
> to do so.
> Such unpalatable affairs are only useful in that they further illuminate
> the worthy goals of the Freeware project.
> --
RMS rewrote the display code because it was: "the best possible answer
to" the controversy. It removed any possible doubts about the public
domainness of GNU Emacs.
Note that RMS still feels the Gosling display code is in the public
domain, and available for use. It was just more important to have GNU
Emacs be free of any controversy and decisions to not use it because
of that controversy.
I hope we can lay this whole thing to bed, and get back to producing
good public-domain software.
Len
Disclaimer: ;-}
I am not speaking for RMS here, but am recounting what I know of the
reasons for the decision. I am a member of the GNU project.