Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs
Subject: Unipress
Message-ID: <9009031723.AA26938@pogo>
Date: 3 Sep 90 17:23:16 GMT
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 122
Posted: Mon Sep 3 18:23:16 1990
[If you want to discuss this, please use gnu.misc.discuss]
I was very surprised to hear that IBM had received a complaint from
Unipress because in 1985, Unipress posted a message on net.emacs (now
known as comp.emacs) containing this paragraph:
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.
(The full text of their message appears at the end.) Of course,
version 18 is, if anything, less similar to Gosmacs than version
16.56.
In case you weren't around back in 1985, here is the history.
In 1980 or so, Gosling started writing his imitation of the original
Emacs that I had done. In his first manual, he appealed for the users
to help improve the program to make it "worthy of the name" of Emacs.
In this, he was acting in the same spirit as inspires the GNU project;
but in those days, the old tradition was not entirely forgotten, and
this was not an unusual thing to do.
Fen Labalme was one of these users who started contributing code.
When a new version appeared with copyright notices, he asked what was
up. Gosling told him that the copyrights were to prevent anyone else
from selling it and that Fen could distribute it anyway.
In 1984, after Gosling sold out to Unipress, Fen gave me a copy of his
modified version. Originally I was simply going to distribute this
editor on Fen's behalf, after making the user-level commands
compatible with the ones I knew. However, when I tried to do that, I
found that the lack of a real Lisp interpreter made programming
unpleasant. So I replaced the programming language, and then replaced
most of the rest by redesigning it to use Lisp data structures, first
class objects, and so on. By 1985, only part of the display code
remained of what I had received with Gosling's copyright.
Then Unipress started claiming that Fen did not have permission to use
Gosmacs, and therefore neither did I. Unfortunately, Fen had not
saved the message from Gosling giving him permission. To eliminate
this problem, I rewrote the display code. A few weeks later, Unipress
made the announcement on net.emacs saying they had no further
complaint. That is the last I have heard from Unipress on the
subject, and I thought the issue was closed.
Then, this spring, I heard about the letter IBM had received. After
comparing the source files, our lawyer said Unipress does not have a
basis for a claim, because the similarities are too small. However,
in an attempt to eliminate all possible uncertainty, I rewrote any
piece of code I could find that seemed similar to part of Gosmacs.
(Of course, many algorithms remain similar, but copyright does not
cover that.) I also replaced some code originally written by Fen,
since this seemed more clear-cut than disputing who wrote it. I hoped
by this to convince IBM to go ahead and distribute GNU Emacs.
However, their attitude was that even an extremely small chance of
trouble was too much. They said that people are prejudiced against
them and that they can lose totally unreasonable lawsuits.
Regardless, I will be putting this new version into pre-test soon.
I'm still waiting for ways to reproduce a couple of difficult bugs.
I think that my actions throughout have been ethical both by my
principles and by those of the establishment, first in using a program
which I believed I had legal permission to use, and then (in 1985)
eliminating that code when I found out I could not substantiate the
permission. However, it seems to have been an unwise decision to
start with Gosmacs at all. Since then I have been careful to get
written permission for all the code that I use in GNU software.
However, it's too late for me to change past mistakes. Luckily, it
seems that this one is not likely to cause real trouble for anyone
with as much guts as a daffodil.
From: unipress!mg@mit-eddie (Mike Gallaher)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-Id: <1...@unipress.uucp>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 15:19:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: unipress.104
Posted: Thu Aug 1 15:19:33 1985
Organization: Unipress Software, Highland Park NJ
Lines: 37
Apparently-To: emacs-netnews-distribution@mit-prep
Status: O
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???