🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991May2.170621.4755@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes:
>Unsubstantiated rumor #1:
>
>Apple gave some early Macs to DR for the express purpose of writing C/PM 68K.
>DR used the Macs instead to disassemble the ROMS and OS, and used what they
>learned to write GEM.  

Sorry, no good.  Apple threatened GEM about the way the screen looked and
never alleged (at least publicly) that theft of code was involved.  You're
the only one who has ever raised this possibility in all the years this
issue has been around.  Your further questions are based on this false
starting point, so they are irrelevant.

>Unsubstantiated rumor #2:
>
>Richard Stallman approached Apple for the express purpose of obtaining
>free Macs (no pun intended) to do FSF/GNU development.  When he explained
>that he wanted Apple to subsidize the development of software that could 
>and would be given away for free, and that his software would would directly 
>compete in the Market against software that Apple sells, Apple declined.

Again, you're being foolish.  It's true that FSF has approached many
hardware companies asking for donations of equipment, but Apple is mainly
a hardware provider; the existence of third party programs, free or for
money, helps their business.  That's why they have good relations with
many software companies, even those that, in some way, compete against
some Apple program.

Go back and read the Gnu Manifesto, which Stallman wrote when he founded
FSF.  Apple's policy of court battles for interface copyrights is a direct
threat to Stallman's fondest dreams.  He's got no choice; he pretty much
has to either fight Apple or sell out.  Your effort to reinvent history
and make the whole thing look like a fit of pique is stupid and loathsome.

>Is the boycott a retaliation or punishment for not getting on the band
>wagon?  

First, you make up a "rumor" from whole cloth (which is not an actual
rumor since no one but you is saying it) and then you base a whole bunch
of questions on it.  

>If Apple gave FSF some equipment, like the 040 or RISC based Macs, would 
>the boycott be over?

Of course not, since if Apple's legal strategy prevails FSF would end
up being illegal (it will be illegal to write freely redistributable
clones of commercial software).  Don't you understand this?  Are you as
foolish as you appear to be?

>If FSF's real reason for boycotting Apple is because of Apples litigation
>stance, should FSF boycott any and all Intel hardware because of Intels' 
>current litigious behavior toward AMD?

No, because Intel's behavior does not in any way threaten FSF's program.
FSF is, in effect, fighting for its own long-term survival, which is
directly threatened by user-interface copyright and software patent
litigation.


--
Joe Buck
jbuck@janus.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!janus.berkeley.edu!jbuck