Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: monty's emacs..
Message-ID: <287@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 10:54:25 EST
Article-I.D.: yetti.287
Posted: Mon Dec 16 10:54:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Dec-85 14:20:44 EST
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 27
Keywords: emacs, PD-software

If what RMS is saying is true about the earlier dist. of Montgomery's
emacs is true, could someone find out the legalities involved, and
post the sources for it to the net ?? To my knowledge, once something
is PD, it is PD !! Later versions may not be so, but the earlier ones
without copyright notices etc. (especially without AT&T's "it is ours,
we wrote it, you cannot even breathe a line out of the sources or we'll
sue your pants off.. there !!!" type notice :-)) would definately be
in the PD. Sure, jove is a nice alternative, but it contains ED reg. expr.
stuff, and some temp.io. portions of VI. Also, it is not terribly 
expandable.

Why is it that in light of the existence of GNU emacs, and number of
other poverful emacses, even an earlier version of monty's emacs cause
so much contraversy ?? Why is it that some companies are so afraid of
letting anything go into PD ?? Check out the recent getopt sources..
now a 20-line program, originally distributed in printout form in a
symposium, bears a copyright notice as large as the sources themselves.
I guess this is what "comic relief" means.

sigh !!

Oz
-- 
Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti]
		In the beginning, there was Word all right, except
		it wasn't fixed number of bits.