Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!necntc!ima!think!rlk From: rlk@think.COM (Robert Krawitz) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: The Selling of GNU Emacs Message-ID: <11580@think.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Nov-87 09:06:31 EST Article-I.D.: think.11580 Posted: Tue Nov 10 09:06:31 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Nov-87 19:57:01 EST Sender: usenet@think.UUCP Reply-To: rlk@THINK.COM Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, MA Lines: 27 It seems to me that if ACW is "selling" GNU Emacs under the GNU license, then they're completely in the right as far as FSF goes (what the KCL people think is another matter). So, if they're not trying to stop anyone from further distributing emacs along with source, and they're not nuking the manifesto, then nothing's being violated. Remember, you are entitled to charge a distribution fee for emacs. So if I can find someone who will pay me $10000 for a copy, it's quite all right for me to sell them the tape for that much, as long as I follow the other terms of the license. Actually, if they HAVE merged KCL into emacs somehow (whatever that means; does it mean a FULL common lisp as an emacs programming language? Yow!) then a donation of $250 to the people responsible seems quite reasonable considering the resulting product. If these folks are then donating some of it to the FSF, then it seems to me a lot of people win out of this -- the people who are doing this (obviously), the people using it, and the FSF in terms of publicity and even some money. Anyone from the FSF care to comment on this? It sounds quite interesting if it's on the level... cca >>>>>>>>>> | harvard >>>>>> | bloom-beacon > |think!rlk Robert Krawitz rutgers >>>>>> | ihnp4 >>>>>>>> .