Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!z
From: z@masscomp.UUCP (Steve Zimmerman)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: GNU Emacs: How Public Domain?
Message-ID: <717@masscomp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Jun-85 16:04:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: masscomp.717
Posted: Sun Jun  9 16:04:01 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Jun-85 21:42:14 EDT
References: <11400007@inmet.UUCP> <3900002@mirror.UUCP>
Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA
Lines: 41

> RMS's work is based on a version of Gosling code that existed
> before Unipress got it.  Gosling had put that code into the
> public domain.  Any work taking off from the early Gosling
> code is therefore also public domain.

This is completely contrary to Gosling's public statements.  Before he
made his arrangements with Unipress, Gosling's policy was that he would
send a free copy of his Emacs to anyone who asked, but he did not
(publicly, at least) give anyone else permission to make copies.  Once
Unipress started selling Gosling's Emacs, Gosling stopped distributing
free copies and still did not grant anyone else permission to make them;
instead, he suggested that people buy Emacs from Unipress.  All versions
of Gosling's Emacs distributed by him carry his copyright notice, and
therefore none of them are in the public domain.  Removing copyright
notices without the author's permission is, of course, illegal.  Now, a
quick check of my GNU Emacs sources shows that sure enough, a number of
files have Gosling's copyright notice in them.  What this all means is
that unless RMS got written permission from Gosling to distribute his
code, all copies of GNU Emacs constitute violations of the copyright
law.  All those people making such copies, including those people who
allow them to be copied off their machines, could each be liable for
large sums of money.  I think that RMS had better tell us if he has
Gosling's written permission to make these copies.  If so, why has he
not stated this earlier (preferably in the distribution itself) and
thereby cleared up a potentially major point of confusion?  If not, why
has he gone ahead and made many, many people liable for criminal
prosecution by recommending that they distribute this code without even
warning them of their liability?  (People who distribute this code would
be liable even if they claim that they didn't see Gosling's notices; the
fact that the notices are there is sufficient.  "Ignorance of the law is
no excuse.")

Now, I have nothing against free software; it's a free country and
people can do what they want.  It's just that people who do distribute
free software had better be sure that they have the legal right to do
so, or be prepared to face the consequences.

	Steven Zimmerman

"The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of Masscomp,
etc., etc."