Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!z From: z@masscomp.UUCP (Steve Zimmerman) Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Re: GNU Emacs Message-ID: <733@masscomp.UUCP> Date: Fri, 28-Jun-85 09:05:21 EDT Article-I.D.: masscomp.733 Posted: Fri Jun 28 09:05:21 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Jun-85 01:26:09 EDT References: <4559@mit-eddie.UUCP> Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA Lines: 25 > From: Richard M. Stallman> For example, just by looking at Zimmerman's messages, you can see > that his goal is to convince you of the most restrictive interpretation > of the law at every juncture--to get you to forfeit as much as possible. I challenge you to find an attorney who has a "less restrictive" interpretation of the law in this case. This just happens to be the way the law is interpreted by the courts. > This is the kind of attitude that people develop when they make a > habit of profiting from interfering with other people. In an earlier message, I urged you to rewrite those portions of GNU Emacs containing Gosling's code. Now that you are doing so, I am quite satisfied, and once this is finished, I can see no legal reason for someone not to use GNU Emacs. I fail to see how I have profited from this. To the contrary, it seems to be your users who have profited, for they will soon be able to use GNU Emacs without doubts as to its legal status. Since UniPress apparently helped you come to your decision, I cannot see why they should be condemned. I think most of your users would prefer to wait a little bit longer for the GNU Emacs manual in order to have a product that is free from questions about its legality. Steve Zimmerman Masscomp