Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!bellcore!faline!sword!arrow!yba
From: yba@arrow.bellcore.com (Mark Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: ./etc/APPLE.  No Free Software for Mac users.
Message-ID: <896@sword.bellcore.com>
Date: 27 Sep 88 17:30:51 GMT
References: <8809262111.AA03718@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Sender: news@sword.bellcore.com
Reply-To: yba@arrow.UUCP (Mark Levine)
Organization: Bellcore, Red Bank, NJ
Lines: 58

In article <8809262111.AA03718@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> "SDRRTR::PSI%PRSRTR::PSI%SCRVX2::BLUE::IN%\"'m_mailnow::m_sdr::davis'@scr-gateway\""@sdr.slb.COM writes:
>
>At the same time, I am saddened and disappointed that we do not live
>in a world where rms' ideas are sufficiently widespread as to make
>this kind of thing irrelevant. I wish that we did not attempt to view
>intellectual property in the same light as material belongings and
>that we could all take pleasure in seeing others using, developing and
>hopefully improving our own efforts. In the long run, we all benefit
>from such an approach.

This seems to be support of a good idea for the wrong reason.  If you
are not a property owner or a wage earner, and only have your
intellectual properties to sell -- for instance you are a writer -- you
would need to see those properties protected at least as well as
material belongings.  Without such protection, publishers would eat
while you starved, and the world would perhaps be relieved of the
benefits of writers.  Copyright came into existence for this reason, or
so I believe.

The suit of Apple as I understand it is based heavily on MS, and
thereby HP, having access to source code.  It is the effort of
producing the "look and feel", not the look and feel per se, that are
considered properties.  I'd sure appreciate correction on these facts
from lawyers who know the suit.  I agree strongly that enforcement of a
"look and feel" copyright or patent would be an evil -- the same as a
writer claiming someone had stolen his "style" or that Ford had
exclusive rights to making cars with four wheels that go "vroom".  And
if you can make a version of my program that is faster and cheaper, go
sell it -- just don't you sell my program, and don't sell your code
derived from my code without my ok.

This is not to say that there should be no intellectual property
rights, until and unless there are to be no property rights at all, and
I don't think we as a species have progressed quite that far yet.

The interesting thing to me is that emacs (and all GNU?) is now part of
a political boycott (read "weapon") if I read this correctly.  I can
see the claim for self-defense (only if my understanding of the Apple suit
is incorrect and they really are based on look and feel), but I cannot say
this does not make me nervous about recommending freeware to a company --
the thought that support may be suddenly withdrawn for political reasons
or that the rules might change at a whim will be worrisome.  Is it the
case that Apple-supporting extensions to emacs, to the window system on
the MAC-II, etc., will not be accepted now?  (Does this constitute
restraint of fair trade?!  Would it give Apple a case against FSF if I
really do not buy an Apple Computer now, given that is real damage to them
and is done on FSF's recommendation?)

It seems that keeping an even course _while_ joining the suit would be a
better strategy.  I would hope that GNU proponents want cleaner hands than
their opponents when things get to court, or even just into the media.

[These are not strictly rhetorical questions.  I have an order for a MAC-II
on hold and really want to know.  If GNU c++, for example, will never be
available, it makes the software suite for the platform unattractive.]

Eleazor bar Shimon, once and future Carolingian
yba@sabre.bellcore.com