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: <10643@duke.cs.duke.edu> Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 13:18:20 EST Article-I.D.: duke.10643 Posted: Mon Nov 16 13:18:20 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Nov-87 06:18:05 EST References: <116@nexus.UUCP> <1947@briar.Philips.Com> <530@hqda-ai.UUCP> <10584@duke.cs.duke.edu> <1973@briar.Philips.Com> Organization: Duke University CS Dept.; Durham, NC Lines: 101 In-reply-to: rob@philabs.Philips.Com's message of 13 Nov 87 18:11:47 GMT Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.47.4 of Sun Aug 9 1987 on duke (berkeley-unix) In article <1973@briar.Philips.Com> rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes: >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. The ad said: BEGIN QUOTE Kyoto Common Lisp and GNU Emacs have been merged into on high performance LISP and C programming tool. THINK IN LISP BUILD IN EMACS RUN IN C Including ALL SOURCE CODE send $250 free shipping on all prepaid orders. END QUOTE gee, from their ad i can easily tell they aren't really selling GNUemacs or kyoto common lisp. they are just selling their modifications, right? bullshit. they hacked wrote some elisp glue, and profiled KCL and decided to sell KCL and GNUemacs. they mention nothing about modifications and nothing about speed increases. So what. the GNU license doesn't say you can't sell GNU, only that you can't restrict people's right to copy and distribute the copies you sell. The following is an extract of the GNU Copying policies as they exist with version 18.47, drawn from help ^C: COPYING POLICIES 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of GNU Emacs source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each file a valid copyright notice such as "Copyright (C) 1986 Free Software Foundation", containing the year of last change and name of copyright holder for the file in question; keep intact the notices on all files that refer to this License Agreement and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the GNU Emacs program a copy of this License Agreement along with the program. You may charge a distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a copy. [Note that this specifically allows them to charge for copies. Last I heard, GNU alone cost $200 from FSF; they distribute more code for $250. The blackguards.] 2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs source code or any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating who last changed such files and the date of any change; and b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical to those contained in this License Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive warranty protection to third parties, at your option). [In other words, the hacks and changes TO GNU EMACS must be put on the same basis as GNU; this is my understanding of what the Austin Code Works has done. The KCL stuff is on a slightly different basis, as the developers of KCL have required, but it is equally available to all, no license fee required.] >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. gee, when do semi-ligit software houses "co-operate" with Stallman's free software ideas? Send out for a side order of logic, would you? Calling them "semi-legit" does't change the fact that they are indeed (so far as I can tell at this range) completely in compliance with the GNU license. Do you have any facts to the contrary? HAVE YOU EVEN TROUBLED YOURSELF TO CHECK? Or is your response purely the product of a half-able reading between the lines of one advertisement? The Austin Code Works phone is (512) 258-0785. Why don't you try asking THEM your questions? by the way, is ACW still selling their "yacc" for pc's? Not according to their ad -- they are selling bison for PC's now. $25.00. -- Charlie Martin (crm@cs.duke.edu,mcnc!duke!crm)