Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!hwcs!scott
From: scott@cs.hw.ac.uk (Scott Telford)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms
Subject: Re: MicroEmacs for Windows (Suggestions)
Message-ID: <2611@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Mar 91 12:34:09 GMT
References: <2571@odin.cs.hw.ac.uk> <1991Mar20.231011.32273@ccad.uiowa.edu>
Sender: news@cs.hw.ac.uk
Reply-To: scott@cs.hw.ac.uk (Scott Telford)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
Lines: 27

In article <1991Mar20.231011.32273@ccad.uiowa.edu> cadsi@ccad.uiowa.edu
(CADSI) writes:
>Bzzzzt..  Copyrights can take many forms.  Some require that source
>code NOT be distributed freely, some allow it.  In general, unless
>stated otherwise in the copyright, you are required to contact author
>(copyright holder) before doing anything with source.
>I say contact the author
>because he doesn't have to redistribute his code at all.  The original
>uEmacs author specifies that you can have HIS source code.  That says
>absolutely nothing about additions.  If its just source to uEmacs,
>without the Windows source, there are a couple sites.  Mail me if you want
>those.

Aha...but if Dave or Dan had done the right thing and *copylefted* the
uEMACS source then any author of a derivative would *have* to make the source
available and everybody would be able to hack uEMACS for Windows as much
as they liked, and the world would be a good and happy place...

Maybe copyleft didn't exist in 1985 though....

Anyway, why would anyone want to withhold the source of a derivative of
something that already has the source available? Maybe they don't want
the world to see how quick & dirty their hacks are... :^)
 _____________________________________________________________________________
| Scott Telford, Dept of Computer Science,               scott@cs.hw.ac.uk    |
| Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.                 scott%hwcs@ukc.uucp  |
|_____ "Expect the unexpected." (The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy) ______|