Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mellon
From: mellon@eris.berkeley.edu (Ted Lemon)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: GNU's not GNU...
Message-ID: <22643@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 5 Apr 89 03:23:40 GMT
References: <28354@apple.Apple.COM> <8158@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 21

In article <8158@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes:
>Wrong! The issue is that Apple and Xerox have a licensing agreement so
>that Apple is protected from this sort of nonsense.  Apple isn't
>stupid, just facist.

In that case, Apple has no grounds to sue anybody but Xerox, for not
protecting their intellectual property.

This look-and-feel flaming is nonsense anyway.   The copyright laws were
set up to benefit society, not to benefit major corporations.   It seems
to me that giving a major corporation a stranglehold on a certain kind
of computer interface is strongly detrimental to society.   If you don't
buy this argument, look at Apple's technical stagnation over the last
five years.   They *still* don't have memory protection or pre-emptive
multitasking in MacOS, and while the PC and UNIX Workstation markets have
seen performance growing in leaps and bounds due to competition, Apple
hardware has been getting better incredibly slowly.   I have on my desk
a UNIX workstation that cost several thousand bux less than a Mac II,
but runs programs four times faster!

				_MelloN_