Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman)
Newsgroups: gnu.emacs
Subject: ./etc/APPLE.  No Free Software for Mac users.
Message-ID: <8809260004.AA02196@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 26 Sep 88 00:04:56 GMT
References: <10172@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 51


      Perhaps I might even
    want to become the exclusive disributor of the thing, to the great
    dismay of those who would like to benefit from my creative efforts.
    Too bad for them!

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").

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.

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).

In other words, he has implicitly presumed the truth of Apple's side
in the controversy, while pretending to be neutral.

      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?

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.

My previous message got two replies from people who wanted to help
fund the amicus brief.  If you are interested in this, the person
organizing it is well!rogue@lll-crg.arpa.

I have also spoken with the lawyer defending Paperback Software
against Lotus.  He is looking for people who know the details of
the history of the development of spreadsheets and can testify
about them.  Send me mail if you think you can help.