Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!uunet!bu-cs!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!PREP.AI.MIT.EDU!jym
From: jym@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Jym Dyer)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs
Subject: ./etc/APPLE.  No Free Software for Mac users.
Message-ID: <8809281259.AA01792@prep.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 88 12:59:50 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: jym@prep.ai.mit.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation
Lines: 66

The American ideal of freedom is encompassed in the concept of liberty,
 which is defined as the right to do anything you want provided you don't
  infringe on others' rights.  And those rights include the right to do
   anything you want provided you don't infringe on others' rights.  And
    those rights . . . (STACK OVERFLOW)

A conflict is inherent in the concept of liberty, when two people want
 the freedom to do things that are mutually exclusive.  We have such a
  conflict here, which seems to me to be between the freedom to create
   similar software and the freedom to make as much money in the short
    term as legally possible (which involves expanding the definition of
     "legally possible").

It seems that a vocal segment of our society is obsessed with the latter
 freedom, holding it higher than many other freedoms (including the rights
  to breathable air, drinkable water, edible food, the use of recording
   equipment, and giving food to the homeless in San Francisco).  I find
    this a very narrow and foolish view.

EMACS (the original) was the best editor in the world.  GNU Emacs is now
 the best editor in the world.  Both editors were distributed freely, and
  they're the best.  And let me tell you something---all the best hacking
   comes from environments where sharing goes on.

(People working in big companies know this; they can share to some extent
 with a large community.  I used to work at DEC; it was a happy place where
  everyone---save a few cranky types and inter-departmental empire-builders
   --shared code with each other.  But some of the best shared code came
    from outside of the company, and some of the best hackers would go to
     lengths to make some code available outside the company.)

And while EMACS and GNU Emacs didn't make scads of money in a short time,
 they proved to be quite valuable in the long run.  I just met an impossible
  and profitable deadline because of GNU Emacs.  The programs involved use
   code available free as part of DECUS C as well as code developed from
    ideas in code from DECUS C.  Like Mr. Horton, I have a family to feed
     and creditors to pay.  Free software has made a large contribution to
      that end.

As the originators of the Macintosh software, Apple made a large amount of
 money.  One could agree that they deserve a large amount of money.  But
  when does the profiteering end?  I say the profiteering should, indeed
   *must* end when it starts to impinge on the freedom to create, learn,
    and explore.

Suppose, intrigued by the Macintosh's "desktop" approach to an interface,
 I write one too.  I'd learn alot.  Perhaps I'd make a better implementa-
  tion.  I'd share the program, and it would simultaneously teach things
   to others and pick up enhancements.  Perhaps the learning and enhanc-
    ing would provide the basis for a revolutionary *new* interface.

Or perhaps Apple would slap a "look and feel" lawsuit on me and we'll
 stay stuck in 1985.

				* * *

We have Macs in our office.  They're used mostly as spreadsheets and to
 make memos.  I'm installing TeX on our other machines to reduce the demand
  on the Macs and thus reduce the demand to buy new ones.  Anyone else have
   boycott ideas?

Remember this handy hint:  Boycott California grapes and Apple!
 <_Jym_>

P.S.:  Boycott, Icelandic fish, General Electric, and light tuna while you're
 at it. :-)