HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (forwarded)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 21:06:50 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dsouth@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Dale Southard Jr.) writes:
: In article <Bsyns3.93L@news.udel.edu>, johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
: 
: <many excellent points deleted>
:  
: > To overturn Lotus v. Borland, and more importantly to achieve
: > an unequivocal change in user interface law, the focus in future
: > needs to be on principles rather than personalities.  In my opinion,
: > boycotts are good at demonizing, but lousy at focusing debate on 
: > the real issues.
: 
: 
: And my point is this:
: 
: Why continue with a policy that so clearly results in a "them-and-us"
: division when one could gain allies (and allies WITHIN APPLE) by a
: simple change.  I am not suggesting LPF anounce an alliance with Apple
: and endorse their products, only that they adopt a method of protest
: that:
: 	1) Does not alienate those who agree with LPF but, for whatever
: 		reason, use Apple (or other boycotted products).
: 
: 	2) Is more likely to result in a CHANGE in Apple's policy (though
: 		any change would likely be de-facto rather than a statement
: 		of future policy).

How about a special AGPL  (Apple Gnu Public License)?

Any Mac program developed with GNU code, or GNU tools needs to have
a pro-LPF and anti-AppleLawyer message affixed to it's "About" box.

The message would state the position of the LPF & GNU and tell people
to complain to Apple.  It would have an address where righteous citizens
can mail Apple and give them a piece of their mind.  (And an advertisement
for the LPF, of course).  A "button" to automatically print out this
form letter, along with some customizable text would make it that
much easier.

If, perchance, a shareware program with the propaganda 'virus' gets popular
enough for a big Mac magazine to take notice, it would a big PR stink,
perhaps and Apple would get the message.

:  Apple hardly cares wether
: or not gcc exists -- yet they DO care about PR (notice how quick they
: procured a patch to fix 32-bit incompatability in older machines -- I really
: doubt that there were very many of us using >16 MB in the machines, yet
: our internet petition had well in excess of 500 signatures in the first week).

Exactly.  You have to attack your enemy at his vulnerable places.

: /* Dale Southard Jr.                                 Sr. Rigger      */

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: hofmann@cs.uiuc.edu (J. Scott Hofmann)
Subject: wanted feature in gdb
Originator: hofmann@sparc7.cs.uiuc.edu
Keywords: gdb
Reply-To: hofmann@cs.uiuc.edu (J. Scott Hofmann)
Organization: Delta group, Dept. of Comp. Sci., University of Illinois at U-C
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 01:34:24 GMT

   To the gdb development team, or any interested person:
   I would dearly love it if I could back up an instruction or two when 
'step'ing through some source in gdb. Is this possible?

                                                   scott


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Hofmann                        | "Scientific Progress goes 'Boink'?"
hofmann@cs.uiuc.edu (NeXTmail accepted) |  -Hobbes
Epoch development team, UIUC            |
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Do you want free objects from FSF?
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:58:26 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug20.160023.25707@s1.gov> dwight@s1.gov (Dwight Shih) writes:
>But I'd agree that it would be good for the basic runtime support to be
>completely unencumbered.  Here I'm caught in a morass of mixed emotions.
>If the basic runtime support were unemcumbered by the GPL, then commercial
>developers could reasonably develop multi-platform applications in
>Objective-C and we might see more commercial support for the NeXT.

I think that the GLPL is the appropriate protection to use for object and
class libraries; this is consistent with what FSF has already done and
will avoid confusion by having the same conditions on all Gnu-ish class
libraries.

>BTW, just what does the GLPL say about object source that either
>Is-A or Has-A GLPL object?

The OO concepts "Is-A" and "Has-A" don't matter.  Only the distinctions
that the linker makes between separate modules matters.  All that matters
is the modules and how they are used.  For example, if you use libg++ in a
project, you must distribute source to libg++.  You need not distribute
source to your classes that are inherited from C++ classes (I purposely
didn't say "derived" to avoid confusion with the concept of a derivative
work in copyright law -- it isn't necessarily the same).  If, however, you
make modifications to the source code of any part of libg++, you must
distribute source to those modifications.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Does the LPF really exist?
Date: 13 Aug 92 10:37:50 GMT
	<FOX.92Aug10150357@graphics.nyu.edu> <JBW.92Aug12104557@bigbird.bu.edu>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu's message of 12 Aug 92 15:45:57 GMT

In article <JBW.92Aug12104557@bigbird.bu.edu> jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells) writes:
>      Since a few months, i try to join the LPF, without much success.  I
>      have sent several mails to league@prep.ai.mit.edu and
>      lpf-request@prep.ai.mit.edu, but apparently they are gone fishing.
>      So, how do i proceed, or should i forget the whole idea?
>
>   I mailed a check to the address given in the FTP document.
>   They cashed it, so I assume I'm a member.  :o)
>
>You may want to send e-mail to league@prep.ai.mit.edu asking to be added
>to the LPF mailing lists.  This doesn't always happen automatically when
>people join.

   I think there has been some confusion on the part of the person who
handles new memberships and adds people to the mailing lists.  I've been
talking to him about it, and hopefully people will get better response from
the LPF in the future.

   As the person who personally answers messages to league@prep.ai.mit.edu
when they concern questions other than membership status, I'd like to say
that I never deliberately ignore messages.  It's possible I didn't get some
messages at all because of mailer problems (it's been known to happen), or
the replies never made it.  I hope this sort of thing doesn't happen that
often anymore.  From now on if people ask about their membership status
I'll investigate and reply personally instead of leaving it to someone
else, though it is still not up to me to cash checks or handle any other
financial duties for the LPF.
From: kodiak@wyatt.ksu.ksu.edu (Bryan D. Nehl)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: where/how to volunteer?
Date: 12 Aug 1992 21:56:10 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: wyatt.ksu.ksu.edu

I have a program that I have pretty much completed except for a man
page and another program that I would like to volunteer to write.
Therefore, I would like to know who do I email to talk about this?
And where do I ftp to get a current copy of the todo list?

Thanks.

Bryan.

913.776.0210
/* === Bryan Nehl ========== kodiak@Kodiakpc.Manhattan.KS.US =========+
[            USDA-ARS-NPA-WERU          ][ bdn@chepil.weru.ksu.edu    ]
[     913.532.6233 or 913.532.6495      ][ kodiak@matt.ksu.ksu.edu    ]
+_______________ ...!rutgers!matt.ksu.ksu.edu!kodiak _______________ */

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rg8406@medtronic.COM (Ron Grenier)
Subject: Splining with GNUPLOT
Keywords: GNUPLOT
Reply-To: rg8406@medtronic.COM
Organization: Medtronic, Inc.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:55:52 GMT

I am using GNUPLOT for 2D plotting of data and was wondering if there was
a way to smooth out the lines between data points.  There is a method for
contour plots, is there one for XY plots?

Ron Grenier
From: paul2@dcs.exeter.ac.uk (Paul Day)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GNUmake on Iris Indigo
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:52:26 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK

Has anyone successfully compiled GNUmake on a Silicon Graphics
machine? (especially the iris indigo running IRIX).

What did you do to the makefile to get it to compile properly?

I've tried all sorts  - any hints & tips would be greatly appreciated.

Paul

-- 
=       Paul Day, Centre for Connection Science, Computer Science Dept,       =
=               University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon, England.                 =
=       BITNET: paul2@dcs.exeter.ac.uk | JANET: paul2@dcs.exeter.ac.uk        =
========= I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything =======
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: [misc.int-property] Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (forwarded)
Date: 13 Aug 92 09:44:02 GMT
	<1992Aug10.030009.1375@nntp.hut.fi>
	<FRIEDMAN.92Aug10221458@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Aug11.103521.24421@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
In-reply-to: ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk's message of 11 Aug 92 10:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.103521.24421@cl.cam.ac.uk> ag129@cl.cam.ac.uk (Alasdair Grant) writes:
>>    (If you want more information about interface copyrights and a related
>> dilemma---software patents---write to the League for Programming Freedom,
>> league@prep.ai.mit.edu.  The LPF is a separate organization from the GNU
>> Project, with different objectives.  Don't be confused about the two).
>
>So why did I get asked for my opinion about software patents when I
>reported a bug in Bison to the official GNU project address as given in
>the documentation?  It's no wonder people get confused.

   Well, the LPF is composed almost entirely of volunteers, most of whom
will spend individual effort trying to raise awareness about the subject.
I can tell you as an employee at the FSF that we heartily (if not
desperately) endorse the LPF, since the FSF feels it has a lot to lose by
software patents and interface copyrights.  That's why, for example, I
volunteered to answer email addressed to league@prep.ai.mit.edu in order to
help out the LPF. 

   This doesn't mean that the LPF endorses the FSF, or that the LPF has any
interest in "free software".  It's much more conservative than that, and
only objects to certain recent changes in copyright and patent law.  The
LPF is a political organization, not a software house (some people might
consider the FSF to be fairly political in nature, but if so it primarily
makes its statement by actually producing free software, not by lobbying to
have any laws changed).

   I think some of the initial confusion came from the fact that Richard
Stallman was president of both organizations, and he founded both of them.
That confusion was one of the reasons he decided to resign as president of
the LPF when his term was up.  I think he has always been careful to keep
the goals of each organization distinct, even if other people made
connections between to two by the fact that he was involved in both of
them.

   Perhaps it doesn't help that the LPF's contact address is at the same
site as the GNU mailing lists.  Well, where could we reliably put the
contact address such that it wouldn't generate such confusion?  It was an
obvious choice given that most of the directors and active LPF volunteers
work here in Cambridge.  It was also the cheapest.
From: chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (forwarded)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 22:41:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbbb

In article <BszGGz.60p@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>... but any executive worth their salt would at least get some
>information about a group, however small, that is taking political
>action against their organization.  They may have taken a brief look
>and decided that the LPF wasn't a threat, but it's practically
>impossible that they are blind to the _existence_ of the LPF and FSF.
>Only IBM could be _that_ moronic.  8-)

(Stupid fucking smiley faces.)  Perhaps you meant that in jest, but
(as I said before on another topic) we're not stupid, and neither is
IBM.  Neither is Apple.  Neither is Intel.  Neither is Microsoft.  You
should never assume that "we're <better>, therefore we're smarter."
For <better> subsititute "morally superior", "older", "younger",
"sexier", what have you.

I see similar wrong-thinking applied to the Mac user interface --
because of Apple's allegedly hateful policies, some people convince
themselves that there isn't anything special about the Apple user
interface ("because, after all, they just copied it from Xerox, didn't
they?").  In fact (having used a couple of the Xerox UIs and read
about some others) it is a definite improvement for most people
(especially those who haven't spent the last 10 years training their
fingers to do emacs meta-control-coke-bottle silliness).  Whether or
not those improvements are entitled to the protection Apple sought for
them is another question.

David Chase
Sun
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: [misc.int-property] Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (for
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 16:03:51 BST
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
> No.  If anything it will get worse as salaries at the Patent & Trademark
> Office [PTO] rise.  Due to a Reagan plan, the PTO is supposed to be
> self-supporting.  It used to be subsidized, but it is now supposed to
> be charging all its costs back to the people who use its services.
> Depending upon your economic point of view, this is either good or bad.

Note that it introduces a powerful incentive to the PTO to be less stringent
about rejecting patents for which there is prior art.  Fewer rejections means
more patents and hence more fees.


mathew
From: jbw@bigbird.bu.edu (Joe Wells)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Does the LPF really exist?
Date: 12 Aug 92 15:44:41 GMT
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Boston University Computer Science Department
In-reply-to: patrick@cs.kuleuven.ac.be's message of 10 Aug 92 08:41:53 GMT

In article <PATRICK.92Aug10094153@godfather.cs.kuleuven.ac.be> patrick@cs.kuleuven.ac.be (Patrick Weemeeuw) writes:

   Since a few months, i try to join the LPF, without much success.  I
   have sent several mails to league@prep.ai.mit.edu and
   lpf-request@prep.ai.mit.edu, but apparently they are gone fishing.
   So, how do i proceed, or should i forget the whole idea?

The LPF doesn't have any paid staff to handle things like this.  Still, I
think you should get an answer to your e-mail within a month!  If you (or
others) would like a membership form, I can e-mail you one.

-- 
Joe Wells <jbw@cs.bu.edu>
Member of the League for Programming Freedom --- send e-mail for details
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Pascal to C translater
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Distribution: gnu
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:11:45 GMT

In article <KHERA.92Aug14105529@thneed.cs.duke.edu> khera@cs.duke.edu (Vivek Khera) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.005915.27936@ecst.csuchico.edu> rodmur@ecst.csuchico.edu (The Terminally Bored) writes:
>
>   Does anyone know if GNU makes a pascal to C translater,  thought I've seen
>   a p2c somewhere before but I didn't see anything at prep.ai.mit.edu
>
>
>the whole world ain't GNU software...  just because something is free
>doesn't mean its from GNU.

True, but to continue this thread..... has anyone considered updating 
p2c to take advantage of GCC2.x nested functions?  It seems to me
that that would make life a lot easier.

C Frog
From: dsouth@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Dale Southard Jr.)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (forwarded)
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:17:32 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <Bsyns3.93L@news.udel.edu>, johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

<many excellent points deleted>
 
> To overturn Lotus v. Borland, and more importantly to achieve
> an unequivocal change in user interface law, the focus in future
> needs to be on principles rather than personalities.  In my opinion,
> boycotts are good at demonizing, but lousy at focusing debate on 
> the real issues.


And my point is this:

Why continue with a policy that so clearly results in a "them-and-us"
division when one could gain allies (and allies WITHIN APPLE) by a
simple change.  I am not suggesting LPF anounce an alliance with Apple
and endorse their products, only that they adopt a method of protest
that:
	1) Does not alienate those who agree with LPF but, for whatever
		reason, use Apple (or other boycotted products).

	2) Is more likely to result in a CHANGE in Apple's policy (though
		any change would likely be de-facto rather than a statement
		of future policy).

Is this solution too simple? Does it cause an unacceptable loss of face
for LPF?  I don't think either is the case.  What it does do is allow LPF
to marshal new troops.  As I said earlier, there are many programmers
that disagree with Apple Inc. as much as LPF.  It is somewhat silly to
assume that the everyone who owns/uses/programs anything made by Apple
agrees with policies created by a few individuals in ivory towers.

As has been observed before, the lack of gcc on Apple platforms is only an
inconvience to those that both use Apple AND have enough respect for
LPF/GNUs position to abide by their wishes.  Apple hardly cares wether
or not gcc exists -- yet they DO care about PR (notice how quick they
procured a patch to fix 32-bit incompatability in older machines -- I really
doubt that there were very many of us using >16 MB in the machines, yet
our internet petition had well in excess of 500 signatures in the first week).

Perhaps, as as Bill may have eluded to in his earlier post, the boycott is 
more about choosing an easy scapegoat than changing attitudes....

-- 
/* Dale Southard Jr.                                 Sr. Rigger      */
/* University of Toledo                             AFF/I   SL/I     */
/* dsouth@uoft02.utoledo.edu                           D-11216       */
/* Department of Chemistry -- "Just another skydiving grad student." */
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: daveg@thymus.synaptics.COM (Dave Gillespie)
Subject: Re: Pascal to C translater
Reply-To: daveg@synaptics.com
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:03:33 GMT

> Does anyone know if GNU makes a pascal to C translater,  thought I've seen
> a p2c somewhere before but I didn't see anything at prep.ai.mit.edu

You probably saw my p2c translator, which is available from
csvax.cs.caltech.edu.  I haven't gotten around to putting it on
prep yet.

								-- Dave
From: gritton@alaska.et.byu.edu (Jamie Gritton)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: An LPF group (was: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit)
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:25:33 GMT
	<1992Aug10.030009.1375@nntp.hut.fi>
	<FRIEDMAN.92Aug10221458@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<LEE.92Aug11144015@meercat.wang.com>
	<FRIEDMAN.92Aug13062433@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <PCG.9
	<FRIEDMAN.92Aug17010255@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: gritton@byu.edu
Organization: Brigham Young University, Provo UT USA

friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:

>    It is, btw, unfortunate that this discussion is continuing in
> gnu.misc.discuss, since that is a likely contributing cause of the
> confusion between the LPF and the FSF.  Until the LPF has its own newsgroup
> (if ever), I'm directing followups to such topics to misc.int-property. 

   Why "if ever"? An LPF newsgroup in the mainstream hierarchies would
be a good idea. Something along the lines of comp.org.lpf. Does anyone
else think this is worthwhile?
--
James Gritton - gritton@byu.edu - I disclaim
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: Apple loses "look and feel" lawsuit (forwarded)
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:58:10 GMT

In article <BsuIK7.32F@news.udel.edu> johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>I doubt that Sculley has ever heard of Richard Stallman.  I'd
>be willing to wager that Roel Pieper, chairman of Unix Systems
>Laboratory, hasn't heard of Stallman either, or doesn't care.
>Pieper is chairman of Unix Systems Laboratory, which is currently 
>suing UC Berkeley and BSDI in a case that many people, including 
>some LPF members, regard as a 'look and feel' case.

You'd lose that wager, I'd wager.  ;-) I'm quite sure that both, John
Sculley, and Roel Pieper have heard of Richard Stallman, the GNU
project, and the League for Programming Freedom.  Whether or not they
consider these things to be significant in any way is a different
question, but any executive worth their salt would at least get some
information about a group, however small, that is taking political
action against their organization.  They may have taken a brief look
and decided that the LPF wasn't a threat, but but it's practically
impossible that they are blind to the _existence_ of the LPF and FSF.
Only IBM could be _that_ moronic.  8-)
--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss