From: bob@mstar.morningstar.com (Bob Sutterfield) Organization: Morning Star Technologies Subject: Why I have joined LPF Sender: info-gnu-emacs-request@prep.ai.mit.edu To: info-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu People look at me and say things like "gee, Bob, you don't look like a frothing-at-the-mouth socialist to me!" and "you mean you really go in for all RMS' dogma?" so I thought I might explain why I have decided to join LPF. No, I am not a socialist. I was raised at the knee of a true disciple of Keynesian economics. In fact, I recently gave up my status as a state lackey to become as grimy a capitalist as anyone you'd ever want to meet. I don't even like trade unions, considering them (as have generations of my fathers before me) to be institutionalized price collusion. But that's another topic... Our company makes some products that operate similarly to some products made by other companies, in either their user interfaces or their programmatic interfaces. The recent Lotus decision (if I understand it correctly) might render some of our products litigiously vulnerable. This would reduce our company's opportunities in the marketplace. What's more, some parts of our development environment consists of software that, though free, operates similarly to software that one might license from other companies. We have chosen this development environment because it is reliable, flexible, and technologically preferable to the alternatives; it's also less expensive. In some cases, alternatives don't really exist: we depend upon abilities of the GNU C compiler, assembler, and loader in our day-to-day work. Those software development tools, and our use of them, might become litigiously vulnerable, in light of the recent Lotus decision. This also would reduce our company's opportunities in the marketplace. Besides the commercial issues, as a philosophical programmer I disagree with the judge's decision in the Lotus look-n-feel case. I find his assessment of the issues to be lacking in understanding of the history and traditions of this profession, as well as the practical realities and advantages of computing in a community of cooperating collaborators. To advance technologically, we must avoid wasting our collective time re-solving problems to which satisfactory solutions have already been found. We must take full advantage of all the discoveries that have preceded the present moment. I don't know for sure how much good the League for Programming Freedom will really do, or if anything or any group can affect the judicial climate that gives rise to events like the Lotus decision. And I don't always agree with everything RMS does or with all the beliefs he holds. But LPF is a group of which I've become aware that might be able to respond to things like the Lotus decision in a constructive manner. I have decided to contribute in the form of dues and membership count, and potentially via other means, to LPF's efforts. I encourage you to consider membership as one means of expressing your support for the freedoms we enjoy in the computing community. If your company will be negatively affected by such decisions, I encourage you to consider corporate membership as well. To join the LPF send $42 to: League for Programming Freedom 1 Kendall Sq, #143 PO Box 9171 Cambridge, MA 02139 or phone (617)492-0023
From: nelson@image.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY Subject: Why I joined the LPF also. Sender: info-gnu-emacs-request@prep.ai.mit.edu To: info-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu I joined the League for Programming Freedom also. I was outraged at the Lotus decision, and again now that Lotus is sueing Borland. Lotus should not be granted monopoly privileges for their user interface. Their user interface became the defacto standard because they sold many copies of it. You may argue that that was because of their user interface, but there are many more factors involved, such as features, price, marketing, etc. In any case, Lotus has earned a great deal of money from 1-2-3. That is the intrinsic reward for creating a defacto standard. They do not need an extrinsic reward for their standard. Some may argue that monopoly protections (be they copyrights, patents, or trade secrets) are necessary for innovation. They are ignoring the current high level of innovation in the computer industry. Anyone who listens to users will quickly realize that we do not need *more* change. If anything, we need less change. I would think that the judge in question (don't remember his name) would realize this. Perhaps someday we'll have leaders who are selected for their ability to manage technology, rather than leaders who are selected for their ability to be selected. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 In Communism's central planning, citizens are told "you will make widgets". In Capitalism's advertising, citizens are told "you will buy widgets".