Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!tower@mit-prep
From: tower@mit-prep
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Unipress and Gnumacs
Message-ID: <5112@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 14:20:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.5112
Posted: Mon Aug 26 14:20:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 20:32:54 EDT
Sender: daemon@mit-eddi.UUCP
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 35

From: Leonard H. Tower Jr. <tower@mit-prep>
In Article-I.D.: usl.624
usl!jla@mit-eddie (Joe Arceneaux) writes:

>  The Unipress-GNU controversey has already begun to recede into the back
>  of my mind, but I seem to recall  reports to the effect that Unipress
>  was considering some form of action against GNU.  Anyway, SOMEthing must
>  have prompted RMS to re-write the code.  If it was not Unipress, then it
>  must have been the volume of articles suggesting that there were grounds
>  for legal action.  While RMS' action was perhaps the best possible answer
>  to  controversey, it seems rather "slimy" to me that he was indeed forced
>  to do so.

>  Such unpalatable affairs are only useful in that they further illuminate
>  the worthy goals of the Freeware project.
>  -- 

RMS rewrote the display code because it was: "the best possible answer
to" the controversy.  It removed any possible doubts about the public
domainness of GNU Emacs.

Note that RMS still feels the Gosling display code is in the public
domain, and available for use.  It was just more important to have GNU
Emacs be free of any controversy and decisions to not use it because
of that controversy.

I hope we can lay this whole thing to bed, and get back to producing
good public-domain software.

Len

Disclaimer:	;-}

I am not speaking for RMS here, but am recounting what I know of the
reasons for the decision.  I am a member of the GNU project.