Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!wuarchive!usc!ucla-cs!math.ucla.edu!pico!barry From: barry@pico.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Boycott NeXT offerings that include a free copy of Lotus Improv Message-ID: <620@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> Date: 26 Oct 90 05:12:54 GMT References: <123663@linus.mitre.org> <565@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> Sender: news@MATH.UCLA.EDU Organization: UCLA Dept. of Math, UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research Lines: 26 [Letter from Richard Stallman saying `boycott Lotus' deleted] I really don't think Lotus is the problem---they are just a symptom. The problem lies in the interpretation of exisitng laws. I can't really blame Lotus for using the existing laws to protect their interests---they weren't protecting _user's_ interests, but no one ever said they were philanthropists. When a legal case produces a decision that is ``not right'', that should trigger changes in the law, not persecution of the defendant. After all, it wasn't Lotus that _made the ruling_---they just asked the question. So, instead of ``boycott NeXT'' or ``boycott Lotus'' (two companies currently doing the _most_ innovative product development in their areas), I would suggest joining with the League For Programming Freedom in lobbying for more appropriate laws. -- Barry Merriman UCLA Dept. of Math UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet)