Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!usl!jla
From: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <624@usl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 00:33:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.624
Posted: Tue Aug 27 00:33:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 18:12:51 EDT
References: <4919@mit-eddie.UUCP> <521@h-sc1.UUCP>
Reply-To: jla@usl.UUCP (Joe Arceneaux)
Organization: University of (SW) Louisiana
Lines: 29
Keywords: "slimy"?
Summary: 

In article <521@h-sc1.UUCP> edwards@h-sc1.UUCP (william edwards) writes:
> 
> FLAME:
> 
> 	I guess mly's comments are more fallout from the great Gosling
> code controversy, but I find them unhelpful and unconstructive.  Just
> what does he mean by "slimy"?  Is he accusing Unipress of illegal or
> immoral acts?  If he is, he had better either substantiate what he says
> with hard facts, or not express such opinions in "print" (yes, this
> arguably "printed material" you're reading).  Such remarks veer close
> to libel.  GNU is not going to help its cause by indiscriminately
> calling people or companies "slimy".

The Unipress-GNU controversey has already begun to recede into the back
of my mind, but I seem to recall  reports to the effect that Unipress
was considering some form of action against GNU.  Anyway, SOMEthing must
have prompted RMS to re-write the code.  If it was not Unipress, then it
must have been the volume of articles suggesting that there were grounds
for legal action.  While RMS' action was perhaps the best possible answer
to the controversey, it seems rather "slimy" to me that he was indeed forced
to do so.

Such unpalatable affairs are only useful in that they further illuminate
the worthy goals of the Freeware project.
-- 
				    Joe Arceneaux

				    Lafayette, LA
				    {akgua, ut-sally}!usl!jla