_______________________________________________________
| |
| PROGRAMMING FREEDOM - online edition |
| |
| November 1992 -==- Number 6 |
| |
| The Electronic Newsletter of |
| The League for Programming Freedom |
| 1 Kendall Sq #143, POBox #9171, Cambridge MA 02139 |
| Send email to: lpf@uunet.uu.net |
| Voicemail phone number: 617-243-4091. |
| Leave your message and we'll return your call. |
| Editor: Spike R. MacPhee (spiker@prep.ai.mit.edu) |
| Assistant Editor: Andy Oram (oram@hicomb.hi.com) |
| Reproduction of Programming Freedom via all |
| electronic media is encouraged. |
| To reproduce a signed article individually, |
| please contact the author for permission. |
|_____________________________________________________|
<><><><><> TABLE OF CONTENTS <><><><><>
LPF News - New email address: lpf@uunet.uu.net; phone works again
LPF publicity efforts at COMDEX - by Chris Hofstader
LEGALLY SPEAKING: DEVELOPMENTS ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FRONT
- by Pamela Samuelson, Michel Denber, and Robert J. Glushko
Norwegian LPF chapter activity - by Haakon W. Lie
LPF Boutique: Materials Available from the League
--==--
LPF NEWS - The LPF has a new email address: lpf@uunet.uu.net. If you
mention the LPF in your signature, please update the address. The LPF
phone is working again and also takes faxes now. Please send in your
election ballot to ensure a legal quorum at the annual meeting, which
is Sunday Dec. 20 at 8PM in the 7th floor lounge at 545 Tech Sq. (MIT
NE43), Cambridge, Mass. <><><>
--==--
The LPF at Fall COMDEX 1992 - by Chris Hofstader (cdh@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
For the first time in the LPF's history we will be running a booth at
the largest convention in our industry. In fact COMDEX is the largest
convention of any kind in the world. There will be over 300,000
professionals and others from all aspects of the computer industry in
attendance. It is being held in Las Vegas Nov. 16-20.
COMDEX offers a unique opportunity for the LPF to have access to both
computer corporate executives, their employees and perhaps most
importantly the entire international technology press corps. Having
our own booth at this convention will provide the LPF with a single
focal point where all of these people can find us and find out more
about our issues. This is the fourth year that the LPF has been at
COMDEX with officials and volunteer members.
This COMDEX also marks one of the rare occasions that Jack Larsen,
Steve Sisak, Gordon Schantz and I will all be available to discuss LPF
issues with both our members who attend the convention and the public
at large. It will also offer us an opportunity to meet and plan for
the future of the LPF.
If any LPF members plan on attending COMDEX and would like to help the
LPF there or would like to meet any or all of the LPF leaders who will
be in attendance there are a number of things that you can do:
1. Send me some mail or call the LPF telephone before the convention
and we can add you to the LPF guest list. Purchasing a booth at
COMDEX allows us to give out a fair number of guest passes at no
charge to the LPF but a 75 dollar savings to the members who take
advantage of this offer.
2. Call us at COMDEX. There are a number of things that a volunteer
can do to help us there and of course we would like to meet and
talk to any members who are interested. Jack Larsen, Steve Sisak
and I will all be registered at Circus Circus throughout the
convention.
3. Visit the LPF booth. Our booth is located in the Riviera
convention center located adjacent to the Riviera Hotel on Las
Vegas Blvd. We will have plenty of LPF materials there as well as
being there ourselves throughout the week.
4. Send other people to the LPF booth. We would love to talk to your
friends and coworkers about he importance of our issues and about
the LPF.
Whether you choose to volunteer at COMDEX or just stop by to talk we
would enjoy seeing you there. If you cannot attend but have friends
or coworkers attending please tell them to drop by and find out what
we're all about. <><><>
--==--
LEGALLY SPEAKING: DEVELOPMENTS ON THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FRONT
by Pamela Samuelson, Michel Denber, and Robert J. Glushko
[This column was first published in the June 1992 issue of
Communications of the ACM. It may be reproduced only for
noncommercial purposes. Due to length, we have edited the article
from nine to six pages.]
The rift between what computing professionals think the law of
intellectual property rights in computer programs ought to be and what
intellectual property professionals (mainly lawyers) think it ought to
be is growing wider every day. At the moment, it appears that the
intellectual property professionals are outmanuevering the computing
professionals by working toward establishing their vision of the
proper rules on software intellectual property rights as "the law"
before the computing professionals even know that the rules that will
govern their conduct are being decided.
While there are unquestionably pros and cons to the software
patent and other intellectual property controversies, the unfortunate
fact of current U.S. policy on intellectual property rights for such
an important product as computer programs is that the policymaking
seems largely to be occurring either behind closed doors or in
courtrooms across the country in cases in which the court papers are
filed under seal. This effectively precludes those whose work will be
substantially affected by the resolution of these controversies from
having any meaningful input into the process of shaping the law in a
manner that would make sense to them. Exclusion of computing
professionals from the policymaking process also means that the
opportunity to persuade them of the merits of proposals eventually
adopted has been lost. This, in turn, may have serious consequences
for the enforceability of the proposals if they become the law.
This column will report on this rift by bringing CACM readers up
to date on some national and international developments in the
intellectual property rights arena and by reporting the results of a
survey on intellectual property rights conducted in August 1991 at the
SIGGRAPH conference in Las Vegas. The SIGGRAPH survey results are
much the same as the CHI '89 survey results reported in the May 1990
"Legally Speaking" column. Both surveys show strong support for
copyright protection for source and object code, but little support
for copyright or patent protection for most aspects of user interfaces
and internal structural features of computer programs. If anything,
the SIGGRAPH survey results show even stronger opposition to copyright
protection for "look and feel" than did the CHI '89 survey, as well as
stronger opposition to patent protection for algorithms.
Further evidence of significant opposition to patent protection
for computer program-related inventions can also be found in a large
number of letters sent by computing professionals in response to last
summer's call for public comment by a U.S. Advisory Commission on
Patent Reform that was ostensibly created to address questions about
patent protection for software innovations, among other issues. The
Commission's recently released draft report dismisses concerns raised
by software patent opponents, and urges, if anything, broadening the
role of patents for software innovations. That the Commission should
be preparing to make these recommendations is not surprising to those
who knew the composition of the subcommittee in charge of the computer
program-related invention issues. This aspect of the Commission's
work seems to be a thinly disguised effort to prevent a more
democratic public debate on software patent issue in which the views
of computing professionals could be considered.
Other events happening outside the realm of public debate include
the recent release of a draft agreement on intellectual property
rights being considered for inclusion as an addendum to the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Although the draft doesn't
directly say so, one of its provisions can be read as requiring member
nations to provide patent protection for software innovations. This
aspect of the GATT-related draft agreement would seem to implement
another recommendation of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Patent
Reform draft report which urges the U.S. to strongly encourage other
countries to broaden patent protection for program-related inventions.
THE SIGGRAPH SURVEY
...After the panelists spoke and responded to questions, the
audience was asked to respond to a survey nearly identical to the
survey on intellectual property rights conducted at CHI '89. There
were 345 respondents to the SIGGRAPH intellectual property rights
survey. As with the CHI '89 survey (which had 667 respondents), the
SIGGRAPH survey was filled out by people who mainly worked for firms
that develop software for commercial purposes (only one in five of the
respondents to these surveys worked for universities)...
AN OVERVIEW OF THE FINDINGS ON PROTECTION OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF
SOFTWARE
There were three aspects of programs that enjoyed significant
support for intellectual property protection among the SIGGRAPH survey
respondents. Like the CHI '89 respondents before them, SIGGRAPHians
overwhelmingly supported copyright protection for the source code of
computer programs. Although a strong majority also supported
copyright protection for object code (as had the CHI survey
respondents), support for copyright protection for object code was
nonetheless lower among both SIGGRAPH and CHI respondents than was the
support for copyright for source code. The other aspect of software
enjoying strong support for copyright protection from SIGGRAPH
respondents was computer generated images (a subject about which no
inquiry was made on the CHI survey)...
... nearly four out of five of the SIGGRAPH respondents were against
patent or copyright protection for algorithms, whereas the CHI
respondents were almost evenly split on the issue...
STRONGER OPPOSITION TO "LOOK AND FEEL"
Opposition to copyright protection for the "look and feel" of
computer programs was also stronger among the SIGGRAPH respondents
than among the CHI '89 survey respondents. More than three-quarters
of the CHI respondents had expressed opposition to protection for the
look and feel of computer programs. Ninety-four percent of SIGGRAPH
respondents, however, were opposed to look and feel protection...
SIMILAR RESULTS CONCERNING OTHER USER INTERFACE FEATURES
Apart from the stronger opposition to look and feel protection,
the SIGGRAPH survey yielded quite similar results to the CHI '89
survey concerning other aspects of user interfaces. Ninety-two
percent of SIGGRAPH respondents opposed protection of user interface
commands, as had 88 percent of the CHI respondents. Ninety-one
percent of SIGGRAPH respondents opposed patent or copyright protection
for user interface functionality, as had eighty-three percent of CHI
respondents. There was somewhat less support among the SIGGRAPH than
CHI respondents for protection of user interface screen layouts (79%
opposition among SIGGRAPH and 69% among CHI respondents) and for user
interface screen sequences (90% opposition among SIGGRAPH and 79%
among SIGCHI respondents for this). Icons, however, were thought
deserving of protection by almost equal percentages of SIGGRAPH (44%)
and SIGCHI (43%) respondents...
DEVELOPMENTS ON THE PATENT FRONT
About two years ago, after some National Research Council
workshops aired conflicting views on software intellectual property
issues, a Congressional hearing was held on software intellectual
property issues. At this hearing, software developers Mitch Kapor and
Dan Bricklin, among others, expressed a number of concerns about
patent protection for software innovations. Some of the concerns
pertained to problems with how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(PTO) was implementing its policy on computer program-related
inventions (e.g., problems arising from the PTO's ignorance of the
prior art and too low a standard as to what software innovations were
inventive enough to be patented). Some concerns were more fundamental
in nature (e.g., whether patent protection for software innovations
might significantly raise the barriers to entry to the software
industry, especially worrisome because small software firms have been
at the forefront of innovation in this industry).
At about the same time, the United States began to consider
proposals to change its patent law to make it more like the patent
laws of other industrialized nations. To address questions that had
arisen concerning patent protection for computer program-related
inventions (including those raised at the Congressional hearing) and
to consider the patent harmonization proposals and some other issues,
the U.S. Department of Commerce established an Advisory Commission on
Patent Law Reform.
Although one important set of issues to be addressed by the
Commission concerned software patents, no effort was made to find a
prominent computing professional who had no stated position on the
issues to serve on the Commission. The person appointed to serve as
the chairman of the Commission's working group on the computer
program-related inventions was Howard Figueroa, an IBM executive who
had publicly spoken in favor of patent protection for computer program
innovations before his appointment to the Commission. (Interestingly,
twenty years ago IBM was one of a number of computer firms who
submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gottschalk
v. Benson case arguing against patent protection for algorithms and
other program-related inventions because of their mathematical
character. The nature of program algorithms hasn't changed at all in
the past two decades, but IBM's position on the patent issues has
completely reversed itself.)
The "public interest" representative on the Commission's working
group on the computer program issues was William Keefauver, the lawyer
who argued the Benson case before U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of AT&T
(the assignee of Benson's patent rights). Keefauver has made no
secret of the fact that he regards the Supreme Court's ruling that
Benson's algorithm for converting binary coded decimals to pure binary
form was unpatentable was wrongly decided. With Figueroa and
Keefauver on the working group on the computer program-related issues,
along with three other lawyers specializing in patent law (and an IBM
attorney as an alternate member), it was widely expected that the
group would conclude that patents were appropriate for computer
program-related inventions. Indeed, any other conclusion would have
been extremely surprising. (Samuelson has yet to meet a patent lawyer
who has doubts about the advisability of patent protection for
software innovations.)
Last spring the Commission published a set of questions for
comment from the public. Most of the questions dealt with patent
harmonization and other issues, but the first group of questions
focused on the computer program-related issues. Even the manner in
which the Commission stated its questions on the computer program
issues suggested something other than an open mind on the issues. One
of the questions, for example, asked whether there was any reason why
patent protection should be "removed" for computer program-related
inventions. This way of stating the question suggests that the law
already clearly provided patent protection for computer program
innovations when, in fact, the case law is in considerable disarray on
this subject.
The Commission has acknowledged receiving 545 letters in response
to this set of questions. Nearly eighty percent of the letters
addressed the computer program-related questions; sixty percent
addressed only the computer program-related issues. The Commission
has not provided further information about the letters, such as the
numbers of respondents who opposed or supported patent protection for
computer program innovations. Electronic versions of some of these
letters were posted on electronic bulletin boards. From these, it is
clear that quite a number of the letters were critical of software
patents and quite a number came from computing professionals.
The draft report of the Commission's working group on the
computer program-related issues was released in January of 1992.
Unsurprisingly, it concludes that patent protection for computer
program-related inventions is well- established in the law and should
be continued. By endorsing the view expressed some years ago by
patent scholar Donald Chisum that algorithms and other computer
program related inventions are patentable because they are processes
and have a technological character, the draft report seems to to call
(as Chisum also did) for the overruling of the 1972 Gottschalk v.
Benson decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court decision ruled that
computer program algorithms were unpatentable on account of their
mathematical character.
The draft report states that it considered all the letters
submitted in the response to the request for public comments. But the
report mainly mentions potential objections to the patenting of
software innovations as a prelude to dismissing them. (This part of
the report follows the form: "A" is not a problem because of X; "B" is
not a problem because of Y; and so on.) The draft report does,
however, recommend a number of changes in PTO procedures for dealing
with program-related inventions. For example, it states that the
Office should have better access to the prior art for software
innovations and better ways of classifying software so that people can
search more effectively for what has been patented before.
The draft report also asserts that Europe and Japan now strongly
support patent protection for the patenting of computer
program-related inventions, and that the major patent offices around
the world are operating in substantial harmony concerning patent
protection for software innovations. It further urges the U.S. to
press those nations that don't provide patent protection for software
innovations to modify their policies to make program-related
inventions patentable, saying that the U.S. competitive edge in
software depends on the availability of patent protection. (It would
take an entire column to explain why the report's assertions about
other nations' patent standards aren't completely accurate, but it is
worth noting that the competitive edge that the U.S. software industry
currently enjoys was achieved in a legal environment in which patent
protection was not available for most computer program-related
inventions.)
GATT-RELATED DEVELOPMENTS
For the last several years, negotiations have been underway to
reach agreement on international norms on intellectual property rights
within the framework of the GATT. In mid-December 1991, a draft
agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) aimed
at achieving this goal was distributed. It is now under consideration
by member nations. Negotiations about it are expected to continue for
some time. It is far from clear that this draft will be adopted,
mainly because third world and industrialized nations have not yet
resolved some longstanding disagreements on a number of its provisions
(such as those requiring patent or patent-like protection for new
species of plants).
Only a few of the provisions of the draft TRIPS agreement deal
with computer software issues. The main provision of the TRIPS
agreement concerning intellectual property rights in computer programs
is that which would require member nations to protect computer
programs as "literary works" under copyright law. The patent section
of the draft TRIPS agreement does not directly mention computer
software, but the provision does say that patents are to be available
without regard to the "field of technology" to which they pertain.
Since it is difficult to dispute that computer programming pertains to
a "field of technology," this provision can be interpreted as
requiring member nations to protect software innovations by patent law
(notwithstanding the statutory provisions that many nations have
excluding many program-related inventions from patents and judicial
interpretations in many nations that have tended to limit the extent
of patent protection for software innovations).
Those who support this expansive interpretation of the draft
TRIPS agreement, like those who wrote the Patent Advisory Commission
draft report, tend to assert that there is already a significant
consensus, at least among Industrialized nations, in favor of patent
protection for software innovations (when, in fact, there is not).
They also tend to ignore significant differences in patentability
standards employed by those nations that do provide some degree of
patent protection for software innovations. At an international
conference on software intellectual property rights sponsored by
Japan's Software Information Technology Center held in Tokyo in
December, the head of the EC Directorate which issued the EC Directive
on Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, after listening to
discussion of British, German, U.S. and Japanese patent caselaw on
patent protection for computer program-related inventions, stated that
the discussion had convinced him that it was premature to say that
there was sufficient consensus on this set of issues to make it part
of the GATT framework.
CONCLUSION
The SIGGRAPH intellectual property rights survey, like the CHI
'89 survey before it, demonstrates that there is strong support for
copyright protection for source and object code, but strong opposition
to extending copyright protection to such things as "look and feel"
within these segments of the technical community. Those surveyed
expected negative consequences for their own work and for the industry
and community of which they were a part if the look and feel lawsuits
established strong copyright protection for user interfaces. The
survey also suggests that there is significant opposition within these
communities concerning patent protection for software innovations.
Neither the SIGGRAPH or the CHI '89 surveys purport to be
anything more than what they are: interesting sets of data about what
people in these communities think about the legal issues that affect
their field...
Intellectual property rights are, of course, not a popularity
contest. What people in a particular field think the law should be on
a particular issue, even if by substantial margins, doesn't
necessarily mean that the courts or the legislature will or should
agree with that group's assessment. But what people think about the
norms that will govern their work and the industry as a whole ought to
matter, if for no other reason than that if there is a substantial gap
between what people in the field think the rule should be and what the
rule is, they may not respect the rule, or may devise strained
interpretations of it that may lead to more litigation. Resentment at
being excluded from the process of shaping the rule can also undermine
the effectiveness of a rule.
...Computer programs are unquestionably an important item of
commerce, not only in the United States, but in many other nations.
Given the international nature of commerce of this product and its
associated services, it is understandable that the U.S. and other
exporters of software products would press other nations for adoption
of relatively uniform rules for protecting intellectual property
rights in software. But it is a bad way for the U.S. (or any other
country) to make public policy by pushing for adoption of an
international treaty requiring member nations to give patent
protection to software innovations and then use that requirement as a
basis for asserting that the U.S. (or other country) has to patent
software innovations in order to comply with its treaty obligations.
Computing professionals rely on the strength of the software
industry, both for their employment and for the tools with which they
conduct their work. They have a strong and abiding interest in the
success of this industry, and in the existence of intellectual
property rights that provide needed incentives for investment in the
industry. In addition, they have a strong sense of professional
responsibility and they care very much about the norms that govern
their work. By virtue of their experience in the field, computing
professionals also have some insights about what kind and what extent
of intellectual property protection for software is appropriate that
those who are making policy in this area would do well to heed.
Pamela Samuelson is a Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh
School of Law. Michel Denber is a researcher at Xerox Corporation's
research facility in Rochester, New York. Robert J. Glushko is the
President of Hypertext Engineering, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
--==--
<><><>LPF email lists - who and what they are for<><><>
These lists are for LPF members only, although you may, of course,
redistribute postings to your friends in the hopes of getting them to
actively support the LPF by joining.
The moderated mailing list:
league-activists@prep.ai.mit.edu
and its two sub-lists:
league-activists-boston@prep.ai.mit.edu
and league-activists-remote@prep.ai.mit.edu should be used only
for members' requests for assistance in league projects, local or
nationally, or for announcements from LPF.
These lists are filtered by a moderator to:
- insure this use;
- minimize the number of messages;
- remove items meant for the list's -request address;
- forward items that should have been sent to another list.
There may be a delay of up to 3 days for your message to be sent on
L-act, so plan ahead for volunteer requests.
League-tactics@prep.ai.mit.edu is for discussion of LPF directions and
is not moderated.
If you want to subscribe, change your eddress (email address), or be
removed from either list, please use:
league-activists-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
or league-tactics-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
General questions about the LPF, and administrative questions about
your membership or your email copy of the newsletter should still go
to: lpf@uunet.uu.net
--==--
LPF Norwegian chapter activity - by Haakon W. Lie (Haakon.Lie@nta.no)
On June 22, the computer science elite of Norway celebrated the 25th
anniversary of Simula, a pioneering object-oriented language. Among the
invited speakers were Alan Kay (formerly of Xerox Parc, now an Apple
fellow) and Larry Tesler (formerly of Xerox Parc, now VP at Apple).
Among the more innocent VIPs were Bjarne Stroustrup and C.A.R. Hoare.
The Norwegian chapter of the League for Programming Freedom used this
opportunity to express our position on user interface copyright and
software patents. The 300 participants received handouts describing
the current threats to programming freedom. both Alan Kay and Larry
Tesler received a copy of the handout, and Tesler acknowledged our
existence in his presentation (before he showed the demo tape of
Apple's forthcoming Newton he said he hoped the LPF representatives
would not copy the user interface. I presume he intended to make a
joke).
The leading computer newspaper in Norway (Computerworld) covered the
event and presented the the views of LPF in two following articles.
Pictures of LPF members with banners ("Object-oriented programmers,
beware!", "Defend Programming Freedom") and handouts were featured and
the total LPF coverage exceeded that of the jubilee itself.
The Norwegian chapter received several new members as result of the
action. To my knowledge, we didn't make any immediate enemies -- we
were careful to sympathize with the theme of the conference. The
handout started like this:
Object-oriented programmers -- beware!
The League for Programming Freedom salutes the creators of Simula
and Object-Oriented Programming. Object-oriented programming has
given programmers powerful techniques to express themselves for
the benefit of the users. Today, the freedom of expression for
programmers is threatened by software patents and interface
copyrights.
LPF is a very American organization using a very American symbol [the
Statue of Liberty] and this may alienate some people. therefore, some
of the text on the handouts and banners were in Norwegian, and we
tried to modify the arguments to suit the law of the land.
--==--
<><><> LPF Boutique: Materials Available from the League <><><>
Please send your order to the League address on the first page.
We don't take credit cards yet, but do take US currency in cash,
checks, money orders, or any of the brands of Travelers Checks.
Buttons
We have reprinted the famous ``fanged apple'' buttons. These
buttons show the symbol of Apple computer with an alien snake's body
and face. You can buy buttons by mail from the League, for $2 each,
in quantities of at least three. We give out buttons at events, but
ask for a donation.
Stickers
We also have stickers showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer,
with the League's name and address. You can order stickers by mail
from the League at $5 for 10 stickers; for larger orders, phone us to
discuss a price. We hand them out free when it is convenient, such as
at our events, but since mailing packages to individuals costs money,
we want to make it an opportunity to raise funds.
Post stickers at eye level and separated from other posted
articles, to make them easy to see. The stickers are not made to
survive rain.
Liberty Postcards
We also have postcards showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer,
with the League's name and address. Same terms as the stickers.
Large Liberty Posters
We have a few posters with the same image that is on the
stickers, approximately 2.5 ft by 1.5 ft. They are $4 each and $4
total shipping and handling in the US for the first one to five
posters, and $2 shipping/handling for each additional five.
Coffee Mugs
Our coffee mugs have the Fanged Apple design in full color on one
side and ``League for Programming Freedom'' on the other. They hold
twelve ounces and are microwave safe. You can order a mug for $15,
nonmembers $17, plus $3.00 shipping and handling. They are now in
stock. Note the price increase.
T-Shirts
Michael Ernst has produced t-shirts with Liberty and ``League for
Programming Freedom'' on the front and ``Innovate, Don't Litigate'' on
the back. (The back slogan will change from time to time.) You can
order shirts by mail from the League for $10, nonmembers $12, plus $2
for shipping and handling. Available colors are yellow, light blue
and ecru; if you specify a color, we will assume you would rather have
another color than no shirt. If you want a chosen color or nothing,
say so explicitly. Please specify the shirt size! (M, L or XL.) We
are sold out of XL shirts with this back-slogan.
We have printed the next version of the LPF t-shirt. The new
back-slogan is "You'll pay for this", with an XORed cursor over the
word "this", and "League for Programming Freedom" underneath. The
front is the same as the older shirt, and the colors are yellow, light
blue, and off-white in M, L, and XL sizes.
Position Papers and Memberships
We will send anyone a copy of the League position papers. If you
want other copies to hand out at an event, we'll send you as many as
you need. Please discuss your plans with us. One-year memberships
are $42 for professionals, $10.50 for students, and $21 for others.
The dues are $100 for an institution with up to three employees, $250
for an institution with four to nine employees, and $500 for an
institution with ten or more employees. For $5000, an institution can
be a sponsor rather than a member.
League Papers Online
You can retrieve LPF written materials in TeXinfo format by anonymous
ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu in the directory /pub/lpf. These include the
position papers, all back issues of our newsletter Programming Freedom
membership form, handouts, friends of the court briefs, and articles
about the LPF's issues of concern. In addition to the above, Joe Wells
has PostScript, DVI, plain text, and Info format versions of the
papers "Against User Interface Copyright" (look-and-feel) and "Against
Software Patents" (patents) available for FTP from the location:
cs.bu.edu:pub/jbw/lpf/
League Video Cassettes
We have a four-hour video tape of two of Richard Stallman's speeches
for the LPF. If you'd like to give LPF speeches, we can send you a
copy of this tape to give you an example to learn from. If you'd like
copies for another purpose, we can send them for $20 each (includes $4
shipping and handling.) They are now available in VHS/NTSC format
only. <><><>
FIRST CLASS MAIL FIRST CLASS MAIL FIRST CLASS MAIL FIRST CLASS MAIL
League for Programming Freedom
1 Kendall Square #143
P.O.Box 9171
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
FIRST CLASS MAIL
TO:
FIRST CLASS MAIL FIRST CLASS MAIL