Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!shebs
From: shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: MINIX - From the mouth of the horse
Message-ID: <4185@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Jan-87 11:03:41 EST
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.4185
Posted: Tue Jan 20 11:03:41 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Jan-87 00:17:42 EST
References: <1026@botter.cs.vu.nl> <4564@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> <599@aurora.UUCP>
Reply-To: shebs@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley Shebs)
Organization: PASS Research Group
Lines: 21
Keywords: MINIX FSF GNU freedom Unix

In article <599@aurora.UUCP> jaw@aurora.UUCP (James A. Woods) writes:

>just wondering why purveyors of "totally free" unix-like software
>seem overly concerned with the law, as the gnu project appears to be.
>re-control through new age license agreements is not really much
>different from the mentality of an armada of at&t attorneys.

RMS and buddies got badly burned once upon a time when they developed
software for the original Lisp Machine.  Two companies, LMI and Symbolics,
were formed to commercialize the machines, and both used the MIT software
as their starting point.  However, Symbolics slapped all kinds of trade
secret notices all over their copies (including stuff that was definitely
in the public domain), and reportedly spent a lot of time and effort trying
to get sole rights to the LM software from MIT.  The three-way tug engendered
quite a lot of bad feelings around the department.  They're pretty wary now
about making software generally available, but it's not clear to me that
the extra legalese would make any difference to a sufficiently determined
corporation entity (care to bet on the outcome of IBM vs FSF?)

>   ames!jaw
							stan the cynic