Xref: utzoo gnu.emacs:8 comp.sys.mac:20786 Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!earleh From: earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) Newsgroups: gnu.emacs,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: ./etc/APPLE. No Free Software for Mac users. Message-ID: <10172@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> Date: 25 Sep 88 20:42:55 GMT References: <10152@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> <8809231927.AA00737@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU Reply-To: earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) Organization: Society to make my life more fun. Lines: 54 In article <8809231927.AA00737@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: > > Ownership of rights to software is a great deal more tenuous at > present than ownership of rights to hardware designs, and Apple is > taking steps in this lawsuit thing to establish just what the limits > of its rights to its own software are. > [Interesting parallel to activities of Hitler and Meese.] > >What Apple is trying to do is define new kinds of "ownership" of the >activities of other people--to gain a new sort of permanent monopoly >never before allowed. If they succeed, we will lose the freedom to >develop systems such as GNU. > On the contrary, Apple is trying to establish the limits of the rights of Apple Computer Company over their own products, developed by Apple Computer Company at great expense, I might add. It is only natural for a company which writes software for profit to want to restrict the copying of said software, and to want to find out more precisely what the legal definition of "copying" might be. Apple's decision to disallow cloning of the Macintosh is surely an unpopular one, but if they should establish the legal right to do so, then they have also established greater protection for the products of others' creative efforts, and not the reverse. If this means that one cannot freely copy another's products, and that the original creator of an artistic work or useful thing has fairly broad rights over those who wish to duplicate it, then as a programmer I would welcome Apple's success in this matter. Sure it is morally superior to give away what I have done, but I don't think I would like to be forced to by law. I do not know what the results of thing might be, but if your rights somehow conflict with those of Apple Computer Company or with mine, then that is why we have courts in this country, to resolve these differences. I can imagine that possible success for Apple in this matter might provide me with greater control over my own work, and with the freedom to perhaps do things which others might find unpopular. Perhaps someday I will write a truly wonderful program, or design a computer with incredible capabilities. 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! >I hope everyone who values GNU software will fight to preserve our >right to produce it. > I hope everyone who makes a living from the fruits of his own creative efforts will make an attempt to understand both sides of this complicated question. Earle R. Horton. 23 Fletcher Circle, Hanover, NH 03755 (603) 643-4109 Sorry, no fancy stuff, since this program limits my .signature to three