Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!mit-athena!martillo
From: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Gnu Emacs & Copyright Laws
Message-ID: <287@mit-athena.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 12:08:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-athe.287
Posted: Mon Jul 15 12:08:39 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 06:27:29 EDT
Reply-To: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo)
Distribution: net
Organization: MIT Project Athena
Lines: 80


Unlike RMS I  am not driven  by ideological fervor  to  take a   stand
against "software  hoarding."  I  was willing  to  "prostitute" myself
and work for ATT Bell  Laboratories.   But I learned  Unix in the days
when the government  forbade  ATT  to sell  Unix  as  a product.   The
material which came out  of the Computer Research  Group then was much
more interesting  than the substandard Unix called  5V2.  The computer
research software was interesting because  the research group was able
to give and receive  ideas from  the  university environment.  Now ATT
is    so paranoic about  protecting  "trade   secrets"  that they  NIH
(NDH)'ed almost every interesting idea in the system.

Xerox's  paranoia basically kept  almost everyone  from learning about
some of  the interesting new    computer   ideas developed  in   their
research  environment and  in   the end this  paranoic concealment  of
ideas is harming Xerox.

RMS  could  easily  be correct that the current   system of industrial
software development hinders  both  research and  harms business.  The
justification that  someone must pay for the   development environment
is   incorrect because hardware  is   worthless without good software.
Therefore the  hardware manufactures have an interest  in  seeing good
new software freely available.

The current  situation  needs people  to  take strong  stands  against
ridiculously rigid interpretations of copyright laws.  If I compose  a
piece  of  written   material, the  convention  is   I  can use  three
consecutive  words from  someone  else's writings  unattributed.    In
scholarly literature, properly  attributed   quotation  is  considered
acceptable up to  about 20% of the composition.   A ridiculously rigid
interpretation of the copyright laws  could  easily require an  author
to get  permission   for  every single  quote,  but this is  silly and
everyone  knows it.  Software  copyright  law is  still relatively new
and no one knows the  commonsense measure.   This  lack of commonsense
measure is being used to scare people.

I would suggest  1 pages of  unattributed code (of  generic  functions
like  strcpy) in a  software  project of at   least moderate  size  is
acceptable.   In  a similar  project, complaining about   10%  or less
attributed code is  silly.   Now the disputed modules   in   Gnu Emacs
constitue about 5% of the  code and I  suspect  less than 10%  of  the
original  version of Gosling's emacs.    Further of the  modules which
contain Gosling's copyright,  Trm.h (a 3  page module)  has  about 50%
(by line  excluding comments) of  its code in common with  the current
version of  Unipress   Emacs.   The difference   between   the current
version of Unipress Emacs and  Gnu Emacs dsp.c (a   5 page module)  is
90%.  The differences between  current version of  Unipress  Emacs and
Gnu Emacs display.c  (a  19 page  module) is about   80%. For all  the
modules which Fen LeBalme gave RMS permission to  use, the differences
are  similar.  Unipress   is not  even using  the   disputed  software
anymore!  Now, these modules contain code people like  Chris Torek and
others contributed when Gosling's emacs  was  in the public domain.  I
must  wonder  whether  these  people would  have  contributed had they
known their freely-given  code was going to become   part of someone's
product.

The  use  of   this freely-given  code   in  the product seems  rather
questionable if this code does not remain freely  available for others
to use even despite the copyright notice.   Trying to forbid  RMS from
using discarded code so that he must spend time to reinvent  the wheel
supports  his  contention that "software  hoarders"  are slowing  down
progress in computer science.

If using  the discarded code  is  wrong, I must wonder  why  display.c
(p. 10) contains the following notice.

/****************************************************************************\
* 									     *
* The following hack and all following lines involving the variable	     *
* "DoneEarly" cause the bottom line of the screen to be redisplayed before   *
* any others if it has changed and it would be redrawn in-place.  This is    *
* purely for Emacs, people using this package for other things might want to *
* lobotomize this section.						     *
* 									     *
\****************************************************************************/