Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU
From: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT....@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch")
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Swedish copyright laws
Message-ID: <961981.861214.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 14-Dec-86 02:13:50 EST
Article-I.D.: MX.961981.861214.KFL
Posted: Sun Dec 14 02:13:50 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 01:20:25 EST
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Please reply to me, I am not on Unix-Emacs.
From: Christer Johansson <mcvax!enea!kuling!chris...@seismo.css.gov>
... The swedish copyright law only applies to programs if they're works
of art. (In a lawsuit recently visicalc was found not to be a work of
art. The same would probably hold for emacs.) ...
Great. No doubt people are wondering why so many popular American
programs are no longer for sale in Sweden, and why very little good
software is written there any more.
Why not give the individual a choice? If he doesn't find a given
program worth the hassle of not being allowed to copy it, he doesn't
have to buy it. But why should other people, who may find the utility
of the program worth its cost and restrictions, be forced to go along
with his choice?
Why shouldn't the author of software have a choice? He can put any
restrictions he likes on the use of his program, and if people don't
like it, they can choose not to buy it. Instead, he is told if he
writes a program, and the Swedish government doesn't consider it a
work of art (as if government's proper role was that of art critic)
that anyone may steal a copy for himself.
...Keith
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!mordor!sri-spam!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!PREP.AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU ("Richard M. Stallman")
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Swedish copyright laws
Message-ID: <8612160134.AA08428@prep.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 15-Dec-86 20:34:35 EST
Article-I.D.: prep.8612160134.AA08428
Posted: Mon Dec 15 20:34:35 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 23:24:42 EST
References: <961981.861214.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 42
Why should the author of a program be allowed control over the
future actions of other people?
Why should all of us tolerate a practice where some people (software
"owners") pressure members of the public (software buyers) to promise
to refuse to cooperate with other members of the public? This
practice, where a wealthy few turn people against their neighbors so
that in the end we sign away our rights, erodes the public spirit that
is vital for us all.
Our weath today comes from cooperation. The more we can cooperate,
the more wealthy we can all be. Occasionally a few will see ways to
profit from being uncooperative. Society can sustain the direct
effect of a certain amount of this. But it has a long term effect
that is even worse. When a few become rich by dividing the others,
everyone else tries to imitate them. Eventually, everyone is looking
for ways to obstruct other people and thus blackmail them. Nobody
cooperates, nothing works as it is supposed to, and we all become poorer.
This is social decay. This is how the US is going. Look at Boesky.
Look at all the office buildings and hotels being built in Boston,
and then look at the homeless people.
Even if we decide, in the name of personally liberty, to tolerate such
activity on a small scale by individuals, we can still discourage it
on large scales through industrial regulations, and keep our personal
freedom intact. We can still raise the public consciousness as to
the wrongness of hoarding information and thus inspire a general
refusal of consumers to accept it.
Right now, however, the government does exactly the opposite: it
encourages hoarding by laws that give authors undeserved power over
the public. This is suicide for society. But it has one happy
consequence: we have no conflict between personal liberty and
discouraging hoarding, because by eliminating government intervention
on the hoarders' side we can discourage hoarding and expand personal
liberty at the same time.
If we think that some software author deserves X dollars, we are
much better off simply handing him X dollars from the treasury
and making the software free, than arranging for him to get X
dollars through a mechanism that promotes social decay and creates
a financial disincentive discouraging use of the program.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!ihdev!dlr
From: d...@ihdev.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Swedish copyright laws
Message-ID: <1082@ihdev.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Dec-86 19:34:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ihdev.1082
Posted: Tue Dec 16 19:34:57 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 22:49:57 EST
References: <961981.861214.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> <8612160134.AA08428@prep.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: d...@ihdev.UUCP (55224-D. L. Ritchey)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 92
The following is a gist of some of R M Stallman's article on "software
ownership. The article is a collectivist diatribe against the very
foundations of western democracies. Read on...
.
.ai.mit.edu> r...@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU ("Richard M. Stallman") writes:
>...
>
>Why should all of us tolerate a practice where some people (software
>"owners") pressure members of the public (software buyers) to promise
>to refuse to cooperate with other members of the public? ...
>...
> Nobody
>cooperates, nothing works as it is supposed to, and we all become poorer.
>This is social decay. This is how the US is going.
>...
>Even if we decide, in the name of personally liberty, to tolerate such
>activity on a small scale by individuals, we can still discourage it
>on large scales through industrial regulations, and keep our personal
>freedom intact. We can still raise the public consciousness as to
>the wrongness of hoarding information and thus inspire a general
>refusal of consumers to accept it.
>
>...
( The remainder of the article was deleted to surve the purge
imposed by our newsposter that requires more new text than
quoted text. )
I am appalled that the the author of this article would use his standing
as (a/the) developer of one of the best known editors on this network to
mount a political soap-box to post such a vituperative diatribe.
Competition and pay for services is the foundation of democratic
capitolist civilization. The call for "industrial regulation" goes
completely again the desire for freedom of expression and creation that
he urges we accept. The so-called "hoarding of information" and
"wrongness" of someone selling software for a profit are what has
produced much of the software used to operate and use the network we are
now reading article from.
If we deny the ability of people to create and sell software for a
living, where are the talents of all of us reading the news here going
go? I submit that we will all find ourselves seeking another trade and
starving on the streetcorner. If someone does not work for "profit" and
make enough at it to pay taxes on those profits, where are the
governmental tax dollars going to come from to pay for the chosen few to
write software.
The idea that a government should decide what a product is worth, what
it should cost, who shall be rewarded for it being produced, etc. are
all hallmarks of communism. We all have read about how well the Soviet
government manages its economy.
Each of you who is old enough to be in college (or beyond) remembers (or
should) the fiasco that was the Nixon era's Wage and Price Controls.
Look at how well government regulation has strengthened our farms and
agricultural states economies. Remember that the oil price fluctuations
have been directly and indirectly caused by governmental (ours and
others) manipulation of world markets.
Do you want ALL software development managed by that group of "proven
performers"?
I do not argue with the place of public domain software.
I do not want to interfere in Mr. Stallman's right to place his work in
the public domain and refuse to let it be sold.
I do not want to interfere in the altruism or other motives of people
who produce excellent (or otherwise) products for the use by the public
and encourage the copying or free distribution of those products.
When, and if, I produce some program that has general usefulness on my
free time, I will probably donate it to the net, after all I have gotten
quite a few very nice and helpful products off of this network.
But, and a very large but, I will resist with all my influence the idea
that we should each be producing all our software free and for public use
and expecting the government to pay us for our daily bread. That way
lies stifling government regulation and total loss of individual liberty
and creativeness. Do you trust some government bureaucrat to recognize
your worth as a programmer, writer, or any other profession?
D. L. Ritchey (Don) AT&T Bell Labs
IH 6h-313 Naperville, IL
(312) 979-6179
--
D. L. Ritchey (Don) AT&T Bell Labs
IH 6h-313 Naperville, IL
(312) 979-6179
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!PREP.AI.MIT.EDU!tower
From: to...@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Swedish copyright laws
Message-ID: <8612171607.AA09065@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 17-Dec-86 11:13:36 EST
Article-I.D.: EDDIE.8612171607.AA09065
Posted: Wed Dec 17 11:13:36 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Dec-86 02:06:55 EST
Sender: dae...@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: to...@prep.ai.mit.edu
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 1000 Mass. Ave.,
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 133
This is a follow-up to the recent discussion of software ownership in
comp.emacs.
* Preliminaries
** Disclaimer
This response is my own personal opinion, and does not represent the
view of Project GNU or the Free Software Foundation.
** Inappropriate for comp.emacs?
Many readers of the technical USENET group comp.emacs dislike having
non-technical discussion in this group. People who wish to discuss
these issues at length, should probably move the discussion to another
newsgroup (e.g. talk.politics).
** Waste of my time?
I may rue this posting. I have serious doubt that I will cause
anyone's opinion to change, or even encourage the competitors to
carefully examine the cooperators side. Most of the cooperators have
most carefully examined the competitors side (its almost impossible
to be educated in the US and not get a full dose of the competitors'
reasoning).
* Rationale
My stomach has clenched up once too often at the flaming that comes up
about GNU on comp.emacs. It's (in the MIT idiom) losing. It's based
on misconceptions, misunderstanding, and knee-jerk reactions.
My goal is to encourage more reasonable examination of the issues.
* Bias, backgrounds, and mis-understanding
Many of the people who are flaming or more rationally disagreeing with
rms haven't read many of his earlier postings about his beliefs. They
are making many false assumptions about his beliefs. I suspect none
of them have read the GNU Manifesto. (It's in the GNU Emacs
distribution as EMACSDIR/etc/GNU ["C-h C-n C-x C-v G N U RET" will
read it into a buffer]. I be willing to mail copies of the GNU
Manifesto to those who don't have access to GNU Emacs.) It's not a
perfect answer to the problems involved in liberating software, but
its a very large significant step down the road.
I advise people to read rms's words carefully, and not let their
backgrounds mis-interpret the words or insert thoughts that aren't
there.
* More background reading
The following books are recommended reading for all competitors who
wish to know their enemy, the cooperators, better. They are also good
reading for competitors who want to give the other side a fair
hearing.
** No Contest, The Case Against Competition
Sub-titled: Why we lose in our race to win.
by Alfie Kohn, 1986, published by Houghton Mifflin, Co., Boston, MA.
ISBN 0-395-39387-6
This book shows why competition is wrong. It is extensively footnoted
and has a comprehensive bibliography. Mr. Kohn notes many of the
academic studies done on competition and cooperation. He also
effectively refutes all the usual arguments and justifications used to
support competition. His definition of competition is: Mutually
Exclusive Goal Attainment, which is a bit narrower than the common
usage.
** Honest Business
Sub-titled: A Superior Strategy for Starting and Managing Your Own Business.
by Michael Phillips and Salli Rasberry, 1981, published by Clear Glass
Publishing Company, San Francisco, and Random House, New York.
ISBN 0-394-51779-2, ISBN 0-394-74830-1 (paperback)
This book shows how to openly and cooperatively run a successful
business without Mutually Exclusive Goal Attainment. It also defines
the kind of personality that is needed to successfully run a business,
and has may helpful tactics on succeeding in business.
** The Evolution of Cooperation
by Robert Axelrod, 1984, published by Basic Books, Inc., New York.
ISBN 0-465-02122-0 ISBN 0-465-02121-2 (paperback)
A scholarly study that examines how cooperation works, and how it
succeeds even in competitive environments. A summary of this book
(from K. Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation) is that to encourage
cooperative behavior one must be nice, retaliatory, AND forgiving
(all at the same time!).
* Comments on previous postings
** USSR /= cooperation
Russia is not a cooperative society (though I suspect a lot of
cooperation is used by its citizens to survive there). It's not even
a socialist one. There are many examples of cooperative societies, the
Kibbutz's in Israel being one. What are termed communist countries
today are quite different than what Marx conceived them to be. (Note
that I am not speaking for or against Marx here.)
** Even competitors use cooperative behavior
They cooperate by using a common tongue. Obeying red lights. Walking
and driving on the proper side of the way.
When anyone doesn't follow these accepted cooperative behaviors, the
rest of us know they are wrong, and often we have codified this
wrongness into law, making the un-cooperative behavior a crime. One
of the goals of GNU is to get people to wake up to the fact that
software hoarding is anti-coopeerative and wrong the same way.
* End
(whew ... ;-} ) I could get into a detailed blow-by-blow rebuttal of
the previous postings, but I want to get back to helping GNU and the
other society building activities I'm involved in, cooperatively.
Hoping I have encouraged a more thorough examination of the
cooperative alternative by you competitors.
Len Tower
ORGANIZATION: Project GNU of the Free Software Foundation
1000 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
HOME: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739
UUCP: {}!mit-eddie!mit-prep!tower INTERNET: to...@prep.ai.mit.edu
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!bu-cs!bzs
From: b...@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Swedish copyright laws
Message-ID: <3011@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 18-Dec-86 23:33:47 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.3011
Posted: Thu Dec 18 23:33:47 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Dec-86 04:46:35 EST
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 16
>I am appalled that the the author of this article would use his standing
>as (a/the) developer of one of the best known editors on this network to
>mount a political soap-box to post such a vituperative diatribe.
>D. L. Ritchey (Don) AT&T Bell Labs
Oh shut up. Actually, if you wanted to say that you don't understand
what you read why didn't you just say so instead of all this posturing
and red-baiting. We're appalled that someone who isn't even an author
of one of the best known editors on this network is mounting a
soap-box to post such vituperative diatribe*.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
* Libertarian flamers: don't quote my note w/o quoting the context it
was responding to, don't leave out this footnote either.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!lll-crg!hoptoad!gnu
From: g...@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: hoarding Unix
Message-ID: <1528@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Fri, 19-Dec-86 15:28:50 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1528
Posted: Fri Dec 19 15:28:50 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Dec-86 02:12:58 EST
References: <961981.861214.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> <3983@nsc.NSC.COM>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 15
In article <1...@ihdev.UUCP> d...@ihdev.UUCP (55224-D. L. Ritchey) writes:
> ... The so-called "hoarding of information" and
>"wrongness" of someone selling software for a profit are what has
>produced much of the software used to operate and use the network we are
>now reading article from.
Actually, one reason Unix runs this network is because AT&T was
prohibited from selling it! As a result, they gave it to universities,
and it gathered a following. Based on what AT&T has done since they
*can* sell it now, we are all lucky it got a start before the, uh,
competitive types killed that nice research result.
--
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilm...@lll-crg.arpa
Call +1 800 854 7179 or +1 714 540 9870 and order X3.159-198x (ANSI C) for $65.
Then spend two weeks reading it and weeping. THEN send in formal comments!