Message-ID: <bnews.sri-arpa.923> Newsgroups: net.emacs Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!whm.arizona@Rand-Relay X-Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!whm.arizona@Rand-Relay From: whm.arizona@Rand-Relay Date: Tue Apr 19 00:59:05 1983 Subject: Unipress licenses: comments and a survey Posted: Thu Apr 14 17:37:46 1983 Received: Tue Apr 19 00:59:05 1983 I find the Unipress license costs a little distressing. I tried calling them up to see what plans for Emacs improvements they have in the near future, but apparently nobody (except a secretary) was in when I called. I was hoping more for costs in the $500/2000 (b/s) range. Since so many source copies are already floating around, it seems unlikely that people are going to be lining up (at least in the near future) to fork out $7000 for a new version with source. I'm wondering if they have any plans to try to get the Mlisp libraries cleaned up (and beefed up) somewhat. That would seem like the kind of thing they could really sell. What they really should do is to to scheme up some way to allow people with extensively rebound keypads to use the available Mlisp packages without having to rehack them for their own keymaps. (I'd try some approach using global variables for the various "fundamental operations" like Forward-Character, Next-Line, and so forth.) Just for fun, here's a little survey about what you think about the Unipress license costs. Let's pretend that they've got a version with as many improvements as have been made by James in the last year or so; and that they've also got a nice manual and tutorial. 1. Would you pay $1000 for a binary license? 2. Would you pay $7000 for a source license? 3. What would you pay for a binary license? 4. What would you pay for a source license? Assume that the "you" refers to whoever pays the bills where you are. Mail your responses to me and I'll summarize and report back when it looks like everybody's had a chance to respond. Bill Mitchell The U of Arizona p.s. Let me also say that I don't fault James in the least for making this move; my hat's off to him for doing the fine job that he's done with Emacs. [Insert applause here.]
Message-ID: <bnews.sri-arpa.919> Newsgroups: net.emacs Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!flon%usc-cse@USC-ECL X-Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!flon%usc-cse@USC-ECL From: flon%usc-cse@USC-ECL Date: Mon Apr 18 21:31:16 1983 Subject: Re: Unipress license costs. Posted: Thu Apr 14 16:22:00 1983 Received: Mon Apr 18 21:31:16 1983 In large measure, I believe Brian is right. Suppose you write a novel in your spare time, and at the request of several hundred, maybe a thousand individuals, you happily mail them a xerox copy and they send you comments and reviews. Then, years later, you send the novel to a publisher who accepts it. Does that then mean that those thousand people who have the earlier copy cannot xerox it for others? Or that they have to burn their copies and buy the book? I'd say that there is maybe no real legal precedent for that sort of thing (though I don't know for sure), and it would probably be up to the judge to decide whether distribution of the earlier copies was illegal. The problem is caused by the sheer number of earlier copies distributed more than anything else. Larry Flon
Message-ID: <bnews.cca.4597> Newsgroups: net.emacs Path: utzoo!decvax!cca!z X-Path: utzoo!decvax!cca!z From: cca!z Date: Tue Apr 19 01:25:37 1983 Subject: Re: Unipress license costs. Posted: Sat Apr 16 15:28:47 1983 Received: Tue Apr 19 01:25:37 1983 The copyright law is quite clear on this point. Gosling attached copyright notices to all of his previous distributions, therefore they cannot be legally copied without his permission. The copyright law also specifically covers object files generated from copyrighted source programs; they are treated the same as the original programs.