Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!bu-cs!root From: root@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Re: GNU Emacs and copyright Message-ID: <450@bu-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Jun-85 19:33:52 EDT Article-I.D.: bu-cs.450 Posted: Sun Jun 30 19:33:52 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 02:42:01 EDT References: <103@unipress.uucp> <216@harvard.ARPA> <215@sdcarl.UUCP>, <1843@amdcad.UUCP> Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci. Lines: 39 Just a thought: I think we all agree that Richard Stallman is to be credited with the design and delivery of the original EMACS in it's modern form (I know a lot of people at MIT had their hand in it but as far as I understand RMS nailed it down and made it useful to the rest of the world.) Now, assuming there is some basis for that, it is kinda sad to hear that *he* is the one under attack over a re-write of his code (from a functional level.) Exactly what do all these people who are making $$ off of selling the editor he popularized owe RMS??? Isn't he the one being ripped off really? Is there *any* value to his claim as an 'inventor'? I know, stuffy arguments about legalese. It would perhaps be nice if law were an algorithm and you just apply it to the facts as most of the arguments on the net seem to assume. The world ain't really that simple! Compelling moral arguments are *exactly* what overturn laws or cause special or new interpretations (otherwise you would have to assume the law is a closed, self-sustaining system with no need for outside influence, which is certainly not true.) Certainly the fact that RMS was so free with his distribution of the original EMACS should not ultimately be his downfall, I doubt a court would go along with that, I suspect a good lawyer could make mince out of other people's claims against him, I think they know it and would be terrified to have to face RMS in court with that hanging over their heads (your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I introduce the inventor of EMACS....) I'm not saying Unipress or CCA have no rights in the case, I paid CCA for their EMACS and certainly have gotten my money's worth. I'm just saying that this is an incredibly special case, if it were anyone else but RMS... I for one would like to say one thing that I have yet to hear from any of these parties: Thank you Richard. -Barry Shein, Boston University