🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9111162058.AA24432@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:

For the sake of brevity, I'll summarise a few of the things RMS wrote
which I disagree with.  

1) RMS says that the FSF is a small, weak organization, and Apple is a
big, strong organization.  He argues that only the strong can punish
the weak, not vice-versa, therefore the FSF isn't 'punishing' Apple!

I'm sorry, this line of reasoning doesn't hold water!  To punish means
to hurt someone.  The FSF is capable of hurting others, just as Apple
and Microsoft are.  I wish that the FSF didn't have hurting and
punishing other organizations as one of its main goals!


2) RMS says that, "Fairness is a requirement we place on the
strong--not on the weak."  He goes on to argue that the FSF doesn't
need to be fair in deciding to punish different organizations.

Again, I cannot agree with this.  One should be fair and just!  It
does not matter who is in a position of strength, nor the details of
how the different parties can hurt one another.

In the past, I have argued that the FSF is unfair in punishing Apple,
but not punishing other companies.  Some of the other companies are
Xerox (which sued Apple, but isn't usually mentioned on the boycott
list), and AT&T which claims to own the concept of 'backing store' and
which is threatening users of X Windows.  Also, IBM, DEC, MIPS, Xerox
and AT&T are filing algorithm patents as fast as they can, and
algorithm patents are much more pernicious than user interface
copyrights, yet the FSF does *nothing* to discourage these companies
from patenting everything in sight!

RMS, the FSF and LPF often say that the Apple v. Microsoft/HP suit is
dangerous to everyone else in the industry, because if Apple wins,
they will be able to create a monopoly on convenient user interfaces.

I wish the above parties would read the summary of proceedings
published on May 20, 1991 in the Daily Appellate Report of the Los
Angeles Daily Journal.  (If anyone would like an ASCII copy, just
email a request and I'll email it to you!)  On about the third page it
says:  "Implicit in Judge Schwarzer's approach to the case is a
rejection of Apple's fundamental contention that the 'total concept
and feel' of the Macintosh graphic user interface is protectible
expression."

What the Judge is saying is that he doesn't believe user interface
copyrights are valid.  So what's the threat?

In RMS's post, I think he misunderstood my arguments about the FSF's
and LPF's boycott.  My point is that I don't think that the FSF should
boycott Apple or other companies.  Punishing organizations shouldn't
be the FSF's function.  The FSF should create and distribute free
software!  I was arguing that the boycott seems unfair and should be
dropped -- I certainly don't believe that all of the computer
companies should be boycotted!

I think that there is no *evidence* that Apple's suit with Microsoft
is dangerous to the FSF's goal of creating a freely distributable
version of Unix, which will probably have a nice user interface
someday.

If the FSF were going to boycott a company or group of companies, then
the FSF should publish and disseminate an explanation of why it is
boycotting those companies, and exactly what the FSF wants those
companies to do to relieve the boycott.

The argument, that the Apple v. Microsoft/HP suit is dangerous to the
FSF GUI Unix seems to be based on hype, rather than on facts.  This
suit doesn't bear on the issue of user interface copyrights.  So why
are we punishing Apple?

RMS, I've heard that you don't read this newsgroup, which seems
unfortunate, because there has been alot of good information on this
issue in the last few weeks.  Lookup some of the postings by John
Coolidge -- they raise some excellent questions!

--Haydn
--
;;  *****************************************************
;;  *  Haydn Huntley    huntley@copper.ucs.indiana.edu  *
;;  *                                                   *
;;  *   Member of the League for Programming Freedom.   *
;;  *   For more info, write to league@prep.ai.mit.edu  *
;;  *****************************************************