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. :-)