Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gatech!bbn!jr@bbn.com From: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Newsgroups: gnu.emacs Subject: Re: ./etc/APPLE. No Free Software for Mac users. Message-ID: <30209@bbn.COM> Date: 28 Sep 88 15:05:56 GMT References: <8809281259.AA01792@prep.ai.mit.edu> Sender: news@bbn.COM Reply-To: jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) Distribution: gnu Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation, Cambridge MA Lines: 72 In-reply-to: jym@PREP.AI.MIT.EDU (Jym Dyer) In article <8809281259.AA01792@prep.ai.mit.edu>, jym@PREP (Jym Dyer) writes: >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. Suppose Apple "wins". What should RMS (or MIT maybe?) do with all the companies that have infringed on the EMACS' "look and feel"? Why didn't Ford sue Chevy over the "look and feel" of the automoblle? [or do I have the order backward here] This month's "Digital Review" in rumormonger Charlie Matco's article: "My eagerness was spawned by having just viewed the version 2 field-test release of DECwindows. I was astonished at just how Maclike it made working with a VAX. "First off, the physical layout of DEC's windows, complete with scroll bars that appear when more data exists than can be displayed on screen, was virtually identical to the Mac's. Then there was the launching of files by double-clicking on the mouse [...]. And to top it off, the icons used in the paint program apeared identical to those in MacPaint. "How could DEC possibly avoid a lawsuit, I asked. Judging by the litigious salvos between Hewlett-Packard and Apple, it seemed the romance between DEC and Apple would be stormy at best. "'Ah,' my lawyer friend solemnly intoned, 'what you must ask is "What did DEC get out of the arrangement with Apple?" since every legal agreement has a quid pro quo. Apple got a VAX as a server platform, so DEC must have been given something in return,' he postulated. 'That something just might be an agreement not to take any legal action against DEC concerning DECwindows.'" Interesting. Now since DEC windows is really X windows, which is copyrighted by MIT and redistributable, does the purported agreement cover all X-derived things? Will X be the thing that sinks Apple even if they "win"? Has DEC really pulled a fast one? Re: boycotts. The supposed basis (RMS' words) of the suit is to increase the value of Apple to its owners. Stock value is a very finicky thing; stocks over-react a lot to news tidbits. I think a boycott with enough visibility might have a chance at working here. The situation with South Africa has parallels. I think the pullouts of at least some US companies may have been motivated in just such ways. Pullouts may, in turn, hurt the people they are supposed to help *in the short run*; the situation is a lot different from Apple et al because countries not companies are involved, and fervent belief in a political end will support an untenable position long past when it becomes economically painful. Also, most whites in SA still expect that they have more krugerrands to lose by sharing power than by keeping it to themselves. Another interesting tidbit from DR: "Claiming VMS Meets OSF Goals, Olsen Rocks Unix Industry Boat "CANNES, France --- VMS is more compliant with the specifications of the Open Software Foundation (OSF) than any other operating system available today, DEC President Kenneth Olsen said ..." ... and goes on to talk about whether OSF is supposed to be tied to AIX or other Unix-derived OS's. Now, this is starting to sound familiar. It's getting to be like the overused term "OSI-compliant". OSI is a *model* of two communicating systems. *Any* communication can be modeled using it, so the compliance claim is vacuous. Sounds like OSF could become another such bandwagon. "GNU is OSF-compliant". How's that sound? -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr