🚀 go-pugleaf

>Excerpts from assocs.kgb: 16-Sep-91 official editor of the KGB Eric A.
>Pearce@bu-it.bu. (664)

>> >From THE ECONOMIST, 14 September 1991, p. 106:
>>     "The Russians were rooked."  The KGB paid several thousand
>>     dollars for a word processor, called GNU Emacs, which is widely
>>     distributed free in western universities.

/* In sb41+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Robert Bates) writes: */

>	If this is true consider the following:
>
>1) The seller did not inform the KGB of thier ability to get the
>software for free, and thus the seller was in breech of the copyright of
>GNU-Emacs.  So the KGB could sue thier source if they wish, or the GNU
>Project could also file suit.
>
From the excerpt posted, I see no evidence that the KGB was not informed that
it was freely distributed.  

As I understand it, there is nothing wrong with me charging $1K for giving
someone GNU emacs if I feel that is what it costs to cover the tape, shipping,
and that ever so disputable variable "my time".  If the the person is willing
to pay that price for such a service, that is his right.  Notice that I have
said *GIVE* them Emacs and charge for "my time".

>2) The KGB thought it would more adventagous to just buy the software
>than to go through the trouble of ftping to MIT, or any other site with
>the source code.
>
Adventagous?  I doubt it.  I suspect that a couple thousand dollars out of
the KGB's budget is peanuts -- heck the US Gov't pays thousands for toilet
seat covers and 29 cent bolts.   :-)

Perhaps the KGB should be awarded the 1991 "Golden Turkey Award"...

>After this is considered, do you still think the KGB is a silly organization?
>
still? no.  silly? no.

>PS.  If case 1 is true should we provoke the folks at the GNU Project to sue?
>
no.  I have seen no facts to show wrong-doing.

Regards,

   ~mitch