Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!uoregon!mist!stevev From: stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc Subject: Re: info-gcc is not a common carrier Message-ID: Date: 31 May 89 18:15:19 GMT References: <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> Sender: news@uoregon.uoregon.edu Distribution: gnu Organization: University of Oregon Chemistry Stores Lines: 62 In-reply-to: rms@AI.MIT.EDU's message of 31 May 89 02:46:22 GMT I agree that Apple's attempt to legitimize "look and feel" as a basis for copyright infringement is self-serving and if successful would stifle much of the software industry, as well as the FSF. However, I think you are getting overly upset about Berry's port of GCC to A/UX, and that you are unfairly trying to make Berry take the heat for a corporate decision that he did not make. In particular, you seem to think that you can stifle porting of GNU software to A/UX. The cat's out of the bag, so to speak. There are too many ways to get GNU software for free, and your redistribution policies are explicitly designed to prevent limited distribution and use of GNU software. You have chosen not to support porting of GNU software to Apple hardware, but there is also little you can do to prevent other people from doing the support themselves. The most you can do is to complain about Apple's policies and urge people to boycott Apple. I suppose you could also change your licensing policies to prohibit distribution of GNU software to Apple products and take legal action against violators of the modified license, but that seems almost as insane as the Apple action itself. You also seem to confuse Berry's speech and actions with Apple's speech and actions. It seems that one of the best ways to prevent Apple from going through with their lawsuit would be to convince Apple employees of the folly of this lawsuit by demonstrating the advantages of free software and of the silliness of "look and feel" quibbles. You may continue to deny official support of Apple products, but to heap criticism on Apple employees who recognize the value of free software and who would be more likely to criticize Apple's efforts to restrict it seems counterproductive. Apple is not an organization of faceless clones, and I think you should recognize that its individual employees need not support all the goals of their organization and can be an effective force for change. Obviously, there is a conflict with the ideal of completely free software in a world where people may take advantage of it by using it to enhance their own profits. It's also possible that David Berry is supporting Apple by his actions, maybe not even unwittingly. However, I think you're trying to fight back against the wrong person. You really should be going after Apple's corporate leadership, the people responsible for their "look and feel" lawsuit in the first place. You want to penalize Apple employees and owners of Apple equipment, but they are not necessarily all people who support the Apple lawsuit. You should work against only the people who actually do support the lawsuit, and not a stereotyped group that you _think_ all support the lawsuit. Continue to boycott Apple in your organization, and continue to urge others to do so as well. However, I'm concerned that the means that you may use to fight Apple beyond those could compromise the ideals of your organization and damage it as much as the Apple lawsuit could. -- Steve VanDevender stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu "Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population. Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."