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