Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!uunet!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!earleh
From: earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs
Subject: Re: ./etc/APPLE.  No Free Software for Mac users.
Message-ID: <10174@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 26 Sep 88 07:47:48 GMT
References: <10172@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <8809260004.AA02196@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Reply-To: earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Thayer School of Engineering.
Lines: 107

In article <8809260004.AA02196@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> 
	rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes:
>In my opinion, the thing that makes creative efforts desirable is that
>people can benefit from them.  I hope everyone who can make creative
>efforts will aim to benefit humanity rather than for so petty a goal
>as to "make a living" (a euphemism for "become a yuppie").
>
     Perhaps you would like to explain to my wife, three children, and
creditors just exactly what is so bad about making a living.  It is
perhaps more true than not that any creative things which I might
produce are owed to the rest of humanity by virtue of what humanity
has given me.  This is different from saying that anyone who has the
ability to copy what I do has unlimited license to do so for their own
profit.

>I hope that, if you ever make any creative efforts that are useful,
>you will do as I do: encourage people to benefit from them, and thus
>bring about the most possible benefit.
>
     I most probably will.  But the thought of being forced to do so
by public opinion, law, or your beliefs turns my stomach.  I do not
necessarily admire what Apple is doing, or how they choose to prevent
the existence of clones, but I feel that they have some right to do
so, and that I would expect to have the same rights in the same
situation. 

>To judge from the his message, though, it doesn't seem likely that Mr.
>Horton will do this.  Instead, he is more likely to say, "Too bad for
>everyone but me!"  Look at this sly liguistic subterfuge:
>
>	 On the contrary, Apple is trying to establish the limits of the
>    rights of Apple Computer Company over their own products
>
>Since the subject of the discussion is a program that resembles a
>Macintosh and wasn't written by Apple, he has here *defined* such
>programs, no matter who writes them, as being "Apple's own products"
>(because only thus can this statement be about the subject at hand).

     Is the subject of the discussion a program that "resembles" a
Macintosh by pure coincidence, or is it something that is partially or
wholly a "copy" of a Macintosh?  If it is, indeed, a "copy" of a
Macintosh, isn't there some remote possibility that Apple Computer
Company has rights here which are being violated?  I honestly do not
know the answer to these questions, but we would not find out by
bullying Apple into dropping their lawsuit, even were this to be
possible.
>
>In other words, he has implicitly presumed the truth of Apple's side
>in the controversy, while pretending to be neutral.
>
     I do not implicitly presume the truth of Apple's side of the
controversy.  I do, however, imagine that there are questions here
which have answers that are not so obvious to me as they appear to be
to you.

>      It is only
>    natural for a company which writes software for profit to want ...
>    to find out more
>    precisely what the legal definition of "copying" might be.
>
>Are we to believe that Apple is neutral as well?  You don't think
>Apple is trying to influence the outcome?
>
     Did I state that Apple was neutral in this issue?  I believe that
I stated that Apple might want to determine the extent to which they
own technology which they have developed.  Of course they would do so
out of selfish reasons, to find out how much money they can make from
what they have done.  Are you trying to make it sound as if I imply
that Apple is doing this out of altruistic or scientific reasons?  Who
is guilty of linguistic subterfuge here?

     I do not for a microsecond imagine that Apple is doing this for
anything other than for the benefit of their stockholders.  I do not
even assume that they are right to do this.  I will even allow that
Apple Computer Company is guilty of "software hoarding."  Software
hoarding is not yet a crime in this country, however.  Until it
becomes one, I support the right of software companies, artists, and
writers to decide who will benefit from the fruits of their creative
works.

     I support Apple's right to define their own turf.  I live in the
country.  I like to hike, camp out, and sometimes even to fish and
hunt.  I despise "No Trespassing" signs with about the same intensity
with which you seem to despise software sold for profit.  I might even
hate the people who put up such signs.  I always honor the signs,
however, because it is better to live in a country where law is
respected than to live in one where it is not.

>Apple's attempt to define programs that HP, or I, write as "Apple's
>own product" is something I am determined to fight.  I am sad that
>Horton is on Apple's side.  With such an ally, they will be hard to
>beat.  But I won't surrender just yet.

     I am not on "Apple's side" as you say.  But I do hold that Apple
has some legal rights which they may have cause to believe have been
violated.  I support the right of anyone who believes his rights to
have been violated to seek remedy in a court of law, and I even
support the right of a large, perhaps unpopular, corporation to do so.

     Please stop accusing me of pretending to be neutral because I do
not come out and say "Apple is right and they will win."  Apple may
not be right.  They may not win.  They, do, however, have cause to go
to court.

Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755
(603) 643-4109
Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three