Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mcnc!duke!crm From: crm@duke.cs.duke.edu (Charlie Martin) Newsgroups: comp.emacs Subject: Re: The Selling of GNU Emacs Message-ID: <10584@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: Tue, 10-Nov-87 16:32:55 EST Article-I.D.: duke.10584 Posted: Tue Nov 10 16:32:55 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 13-Nov-87 00:13:49 EST References: <116@nexus.UUCP> <1947@briar.Philips.Com> <530@hqda-ai.UUCP> Organization: Duke University CS Dept.; Durham, NC Lines: 106 In-reply-to: merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP's message of 9 Nov 87 14:40:34 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.4 of Sun Aug 9 1987 on duke (berkeley-unix) In article <530@hqda-ai.UUCP> merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes: Austin Code Works may be trying to make a quick buck off of RMS's work. FSF may fry them. Then again, it's easier if we take care of them ourselves. Check Article 2(b) of the GNU Public License. Under the provisions of this license, it seems that the entire product must come with the same rights as the GNU Emacs it was derived from. Therefore, anyone who has a copy is entitled to (among other things) give it away. Anyone got a copy, and would you care to make it accessible? -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 UUCP: *!uunet!cos!hqda-ai!merlin ARPA: ai01@hios-pent.arpa Okay, I just talked to the people at Austin Code Works, and found out the following: (1) The code they are "selling" is a Kyoto Common Lisp with their own modifications to improve performance. It is included with GNU Emacs. The Emacs code has modifications to make it a better combination with KCL. The performance modifications, by the way, reduce the time required for (prove-all ...) in the Boyer-Moore Theorem Prover by nearly half. (2790 seconds vs. 4000-odd.) Complete benchmark information is available from Austin Code Works. (2) The code is available under the constraints of the appropriate licenses, i.e. GNU can be copied under the GNU agreement, KCL under the KCL agreement. Both agree that the code is copyrighted, but can be freely copied as long as the copyright agreement is honored. The major difference between the two is that the owners of the Kyoto Common Lisp copyright ask new users to sign a license agreement that states the conditions will be honored. This free copying includes --- as it should under the license agreements --- the new code that the ACW people --- notably Bill Schelter --- have built. (3) People should know that Kyoto Common Lisp was originally under a pretty constraining license agreement in this country. Mark Eaton, Bob Boyer and Michael Ballantine at MCC talked the original developers into making it free software. Austin Code Works is one group that is now distributing it. Michael Ballantine asked me to make sure to mention Yuasa, Hagia, and Nakajima, who very kindly agreed to this freeing of the code. (4) It is also available for FTP via rascal.ics.utexas.edu. This includes ports to many machines. This has not been widely publicized yet because it is not 100% a stable product, but it is there. (5) ACW is actively building ports to other machines, sometimes under contract from one company or another. The new ports are ALSO going to be made available freely, and all porting contracts have specified this. (6) The code is busily being ported to GNU C, and will be available in that form. KCL and the Emacs extensions were offered to FSF/Stallman; they refused because they didn't want to have to deal with the "sign the paper" free copying agreement. So, in other words, the Austin Code Works has PRECISELY fulfilled one of Stallman's predictions, i.e. that GNU and other free software would generate companies that provide service and support but allow free copying; ACW is doing so with Emacs AND a substantial and useful chunk of software beyond Emacs; and they are charging only $50 dollars or so more than Stallman and FSF charge for an EMACS distribution. flame: begin BUT in the meantime, ACW has been being villified by people who HAD NOT ONE DAMNED WORD OF EVIDENCE that ACW was doing anything wrong, and who could not be bothered to make a SINGLE DAMNED PHONE CALL before they started accusing ACW of the Dread Evil of Copyright Violation. THIS IS NOT A JOKE!!! This is bloody well near to criminal libel, because copyright violation IS a crime, and there is no truth to the rumor that they were somehow trying to make illicit profits on GNU Emacs and KCL. WORSE EVEN THAN that (if it is possible) is the fact that this can't be very encouraging to others who might want to co-operate with Stallman's free software ideas. Why should ANYONE BOTHER? Those of you who have said things like "I hope FSF burns them" should think very carefully on this. I think there are a number of people one this mail group who should now consider seriously posting complete and abject apologies for shooting off they virtual mouths and insulting others without a SHRED not a DAMNED SHRED of reality. They should be ashamed of themselves. By the way --- the author of this completely unashamed flame has no connection with Austin Code Works except for a phone call from North Carolina to texas this afternoon; has no connection with the Free Software Foundation other than the purchase of an Emacs manual; and is not all that sure of the correctness of the free software idea. He can however tell a hawk from a handsaw when the wind is in the proper quarter. end flame. -- Charlie Martin (crm@cs.duke.edu,mcnc!duke!crm)