Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!MCC.COM!rfg
From: rfg@MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: info-gcc is not a common carrier
Message-ID: <8906031724.AA17788@pink.aca.mcc.com>
Date: 3 Jun 89 17:24:34 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 55


Recently, Michael Tiemann wrote:

> If we sit there, trying
> to determine if GCC on A/UX has cost Apple $1000 or $10,000 in lost
> compiler revenue, they are building a legal jail around us.  If we
> don't look up soon, they will complete that jail, free software will
> be illegal, and years of hard work and all hopes that sparked it will
> be locked up forever.

Michael makes the point quite vividly.  I'm sure that (almost) everyone
reading these postings agrees that it would be a horrible outcome if
free software became illegal.

The current brouhaha about the A/UX port of GCC (and the postings
regarding same) have raised a (legitimate) question about the tactics 
used to fight against such an outcome.  Since the subject has already
been breached, I would like to interject some related (but different
and perhaps even new) questions about tactics.

First, I'd like to know if all this fuss is really even warranted?

Isn't it possible that Apple, Lotus, and Ashton-tate will simply
lose their respective "look-and-feel" suits (and thus have to bear
at least their own court costs and lawyer's fees, and maybe even
those of the defendants)?  Wouldn't this alone be the best and most
powerful dis-incentive for anybody trying this kind of a suit again?
After all, if you've got precedent going against you, and if you may
have to pay for the trouble you stir up (out of your own corporate
pocket) you'll probably think twice before knocking over that beehive
just to get a shot at the honey.

If all three of these companies were to lose their suits, I think that
"look-and-feel" would quickly begin to fade from our collective memories.
After a year or two, it would simply be remembered as a bad joke.

So perhaps FSF should be asking for donations for the "defense legal fund"
which would be given to the defendants in these cases so that they could
afford to hire the *best* lawyers (and more of them).

Beyond this (perhaps crazy) suggestion, there is the larger question of
how to permanently insure (regardless of the outcome of the current suits)
that such suits are never brought again against anybody.  This is the "war"
of which the current fights against Apple, Lotus, and Ashton-Tate are only
minor "battles".

How can we win the war?  Is new legislation needed?  If so, would it
necessarily be at the federal level (I guess).  How could we get the ball
rolling for such legislation?  I am very naive about such things.  rms?
Care to respond?

// Ron Guilmette  -  MCC  -  Experimental Systems Kit Project
// 3500 West Balcones Center Drive,  Austin, TX  78759  -  (512)338-3740
// ARPA: rfg@mcc.com
// UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg