HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:14:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.033710.13698@tamsun.tamu.edu> sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes:

>Besides, this is not nearly as true as it used to be. Notice Apple's gradual
>change in pricing. System 7 - $100, Hypercard - unbundled, QuickTime - $150?

It's a money making scheme.  The software is still copyprotected by
that dongle that happens to be an entire computer.  Apple charges a lot
of money for that dongle.  They charge $100 for a whole bunch of disks
and manuals, a possible material cost of $70 (check out the costs for
typical manuals and disk duplication).  They charge $2000 for a
computer that costs $400 to make.  It sounds like they make a lot more
money on their hardware than software.

>Apple has lost the UI suit againts uSoft and HP. FSF has won. (sort of) It is
>time to kiss and make-up.

No it isn't.  Apple has filed an appeal, the decision could still be
overturned.  Apple hasn't exactly lost either, the details are fuzzy.
The suit was in part based on contract law which has nothing to do with
copyright law, so look and feel copyright is not yet dead.  Those parts
of the suit that were based on copyright only (possibly) invalidated
certains kinds of look and feel copyright.  Even if look and feel
copyright were totally invalidated Apple could still file suits based
on other laws.  Apple can still totally buy out or bankrupt small
companies

Your patronizing attitude isn't appreciated either.
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber	anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu   uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
From: terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: Socially-Responsible Long Distance (was: AT&T Long Distance Boycott)
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:16:37 GMT

In article <MORSE.92Sep10093729@quark.mpr.ca> morse@quark.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse) writes:
>Yah, and what are Sprint's views on the ANC, the PLO, the IRA, social
>welfare, medicare, the Democrats, the Rupublicans, the ACLU, the NCAA,
>nuclear power, logging, and recycling? 8-)
                ^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^

	I don't know about the rest, but Sprint certainly logs use of it's
services by it's customers.  That's how they bill people.  As for recycling,
have you seen any really new Sprint ads lately?


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu

---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2928 comp.os.mach:1186
From: davidm@consilium.com (David S. Masterson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:30:21 GMT
	<PCG.92Sep5151041@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> <18b52oINNicr@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California
In-reply-to: jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu's message of 5 Sep 92 20:24:56 GMT
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.13  [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> On 5 Sep 92 20:24:56 GMT, jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) said:

> The judge might very well conclude that USL owes Berkeley more of an
> intellectual debt than vice versa.  Then sue 'em for damaging the good name
> of the university, legal harassment, etc, etc.

I wondered if anyone would see this strategy.  I also wondered what parts of
SVR4 UNIX were developed where.  Anyone got a list of what major parts of UNIX
were not developed at Bell Labs?
 
--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311					640 Clyde Ct.
uunet!cimshop!davidm				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
From: rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond)
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:53:34 EST
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Why the boycott of Macintoshes?
	<183hbrINNekd@carbon.rpal.rockwell.com>

kfogel@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Karl Fogel) writes:
>about ideas that it didn't even originate.  But that's no reason to go
>dumping core on its employees, who are not in control of what's going

  Funny - I wish I had a better memory, but I vaguely remember there being 
people up in arms about a donation made by the maffia.  Something about
'blood money' being donated is still 'blood money', and by accepting it you
are condoning the practices (robbing, murder, drug pushing, whatever) that
helped to 'earn' that money.

  As far as I am concerned, someone working for a company that is as
publicly destructive as Apple has been in the last few years is just as
guilty as the upper management.  It's not as if this employee doesn't 
know how to read and doesn't read any of the journals.

  Would I quit working for a company that fundamentally stepped against
my beliefs?  Without a second thought!  I don't have the belief that holding
a specific job is worth more than being able to keep a level of
respect for myself.  I also don't believe that every single software firm
out there holds the same destructive beliefs.


>                            -Karl Fogel
>	     	     kfogel@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
>		      fogel@antares.mcs.anl.gov

--
  Opinions expressed in this message are my Own. I represent nobody else.
  Russell McOrmond  rwm@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca Net Support:(613) 230-2282(V.32Bis)
  FidoNet 1:163/109 Welmat Help 1:1/139  Current WELMAT 'keeper of sources'.
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:52:27 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

Here's a question:

Why _does_ the FSF allow its software to be ported to Apple machines, even if
it refuses to do so itself?  Why doesn't the GPL contain a statement that
licenses you to use the program only if you not only make source available
with binaries, but also agree not to port the program to an Apple machine?

I can think of a number of possible reasons--except that all the reasons I can
think of would _also_ rule out the boycott of Apple to begin with.  I can't
think of any reasons that would make the FSF allow porting of GNU software to
Apples _and_ still boycott Apple.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: atownley@cs.umr.edu (Andrew S. Townley)
Subject: building elvis on an IBM 370 mainframe
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:02:58 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri-Rolla, Missouri's Technological University


Hello,
	I'm not sure that this is the place to ask this question, but I really  
would like to have elvis running on our 370 mainframe because I have to write  
COBOL code this semester.  If there is anyone out there who can point me in the  
right direction, I would really appreciate it.  If there is someone who by  
chance already has it installed and working they could just send me the files,  
that is if they wouldn't mind.  My mainframe address is S099582@umrvma.umr.edu.
	I have the elvis-1.6 source code sitting here, but I don't know what to  
do with it.  Generally I avoid the mainframe like the plague, but I really have  
to work on the stupid thing so any help would be apprectiated.

Thanks,

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***********************************       *************************************
* Andrew S. Townley               *   !   * Kirk: In every revolution there's *
* Unix/NeXT:  atownley@cs.umr.edu *   !   *       one man...                  *
***********************************  /_\  *************************************
                              =====/` - '\=====
                                  ( ( O ) )
           --______-------________/\  -  /\_______--------______--
                ---------____***___/`---'\__***____--------

                          ***** F-4U Corsair *****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.misc,comp.software-eng,comp.sw.component
From: lsimon@paradyne.com (Lenny Simon)
Subject: Version and Time Stamping
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 02:19:50 GMT

We were wondering how other companies version
and time stamp executable programs.

Our project requires a version and time
stamp embeded into a "built product" and
through our version control (Sablime) there
is no built-in mechanism on getting such a
time stamp inserted into a built system.
We currently code with %W% so that use of
the "what" command will give us all the
source files that went into an executable.
But we are not sure how to place a final 
stamp on the product?

How are others handling this issue?

Thanks
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brent)
Subject: Re: Gripe with Bison code (and a suggested fix...)
Organization: Texas A&M Univ., Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:11:32 GMT

bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brent) writes:
|
|I have a problem with some of the Bison code (version 1.18).  Not the
|generated code, but bison's source.

I received some interesting replies to my original post.

1)  Some one accused me of calling people names.  What?
    I certainly didn't do this, but I *was* extremely critical of the code.
    (Critiqueing code is what happens when code becomes public.  You
     see something that disturbs you, etc. )

2)  Mr. Stallman educated me on one aspect of using variable arguments: not
    all systems and compilers can deal with variables arguments.  This
    is the reason some functions may have 9 arguments...  I didn't know
    some systems couldn't do it; I never thought anything about it.

I will change the software to use variable arguments using the ANSI
method (stdarg.h, varargs.h, etc) and I will see where to mail the changes.

Thanks,
-Brent
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:37:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.005357.14302@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
[40 lines deleted]
>
>As for why the FSF is not endorsing any apple ports:  Apple is in business
>to make money.  

They are? How shocking!!!!! 

>                Apple makes money by selling hardware; they do not sell
>software, except as a secondary thought.
So does Sun. Big deal.

Besides, this is not nearly as true as it used to be. Notice Apple's gradual
change in pricing. System 7 - $100, Hypercard - unbundled, QuickTime - $150?
etc.  Hardware prices have come down. Software prices have gone up.

>                                         By porting GNU utilities, such as
>emacs or gcc, to the Macintosh, you are helping to encourage people to get a
>Macintosh, and, therefore, are helping to support Apple's evil, litiguous
>ways.
>

Oh please......

Apple has lost the UI suit againts uSoft and HP. FSF has won. (sort of) It is
time to kiss and make-up.

Steve Fuller
sfuller@tamu.edu
From: shebs@apple.com (Stan Shebs)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Why the boycott of Macintoshes?
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:54:46 GMT
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Apple Computer Inc.

In article <185s22INNnnb@agate.berkeley.edu>, jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu
(Joe Buck) wrote:
> 
> In article <183hbrINNekd@carbon.rpal.rockwell.com> Brian L. Acton <acton@rpal.rockwell.com> writes:
> Apple's
> legal maneuvers threaten to put outfits like the FSF out of business.
> If a company can own the rights to an interface based on its "look and
> feel", then the end goal of the Gnu project -- a freely redistributable
> system that is upward compatible with Unix -- will be illegal.  So FSF
> is not boycotting Apple because of philosophical reasons at all, but
> rather because it is fighting for its survival.

Of course, there are now no "Apple legal maneuvers" to defend against, and
the only suggested condition for ending the boycott has been for Apple to
publicly forswear any future lawsuits, which no company of Apple's size is
going to do.  So to me the continuance of the boycott looks more like a
combination of spite and convenience than "fighting for survival".

> Actually, I think that the USL-Berkeley-BSDI suit is a more direct threat
> to FSF's existence, [...] 
> Should FSF then boycott all USL-derived products?  I think not; continuing
> to develop Gnu as quickly as possible and getting it spread far and wide
> would be the best revenge.

By the same reasoning, FSF should have pushed hard to bring up a full Gnu
on Macs!  But so far, the boycotting and associated demonizing of
corporations
has been limited to companies like Apple, Lotus, and Xerox, all of whose
products are inessential or irrelevant to Gnu development.  I would be much
more impressed by a boycott of USL, but I expect to see all manner of
rationalization for not doing so instead.  Who'd want to participate in a
boycott that actually hurt?

Stan Shebs
Apple ATG System Software
shebs@apple.com
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 04:27:44 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep15.033710.13698@tamsun.tamu.edu>
sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes: 
#It is
#time to kiss and make-up.

It's not that time untill Apple says that they are abandoning these
types of suits. They haven't.



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 21:43:39 GMT
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.

In article <1992Sep15.194156.25683@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>#Why _does_ the FSF allow its software to be ported to Apple machines, even if
>#it refuses to do so itself?
>Because restricing the distribution of code is what the FSF is
>fighting for. 
>Because the FSF is one of the few organizations that still recognize
>the difference between forbidding someone from doing something, and
>not helping somebody do something.

What it means to "help" someone is extremely fuzzy.

If I can take a year to write a compiler for a Mac, or I can take a month
to port GCC to the Mac, I'd argue that FSF is "helping" me get a compiler
for the Mac.
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,rec.photo
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au (Paul Repacholi)
Subject: Re: Time to boycott Photo CD
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:11:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.164601.735@cognos.com>, mcgregoa@cognos.com (Alayne McGregor) writes:
...
Yeah I know it's not realy photography but....
> The problem with the Therac-25 radiation (not X-ray) machine was, from what
> I've read, both a hardware and software problem. The software malfunctioned in
> not correctly calculating the intensity of the radiation in certain unusual
> cases; the hardware interlocks that should have prevented this level of
> radiation from reaching the patient did not react fast enough.
> 

The Therac could be used fr electron beam or X-ray therapy. For X-ray use, the
beam current is *MUCH* higher, and a tungsten block anode is moved into the
path of the beam. The problem arose when the machine was A-B-A mode switched in
a short time. ( can't remember the exact sequence ) Anyway, you ended up with
the machine in X-ray mode but with the target OUT. You them proceed to zap them
with several AMPS of E beam...

> Furthermore, the problem only showed up if an operator entered an incorrect value
> and corrected that value within a few seconds. This kind of timing problem is
> *not* easy to find just by reading code.
> 

The machine in fact registed an error condition, "Malfunction 25"
the ops canceled it and proceded. If it had said

    " you are about to **KILL** the patient..." they would, I am sure, have
taken more notice and stoped t see what the hell was going on.

~Paul
From: briggs@csugrad.cs.vt.edu (Allen Briggs)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:39:37 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech Computer Science Dept, Blacksburg, VA

In article <1992Sep15.184845.156@news.nd.edu> dmatiske@caravaggio.helios.nd.edu (david matiskella) writes:
>       However the main problem with proting GNU stuff to the mac is
>that most of them will require major rewrites. They are not designed
>around an event driven architechure. The ones that have been ported
>generally require MPW which simulates a lot of unix  calls.

[Please use the enter key...]

This is a minor point, but Apple does have a un*x offering for the
"higher-end" mac's.  I've been using A/UX for the last 4.5 years, and
it's not that hard to get most std un*x stuff to compile on it...  It
beats the heck out of most 80386 versions that I've seen.

-allen
-- 
Allen Briggs          \ My eyes have seen you/Free from diguise
briggs@csugrad.cs.vt.edu | Gazing on a city under/Television skies.
Computer Science      / My eyes have seen you/Let them photograph your soul
Virginia Tech      / Memorize your alleys/On an endless roll. (The Doors)
From: dreier@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:52:33
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
	<DREIER.92Sep14154407@beirut.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep15.005357.14302@kithrup.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lhasa.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sef@kithrup.COM's message of 15 Sep 92 00:53:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.005357.14302@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

   [...]

   Or is perhaps your knowledge of the situation limited by your ablity to
   think and read?

   [...]

   Apple has sued uSoft and HP over "user-interface copyright violation."
   Apple is claiming that any program that looks a certain way and acts a
   certain way infringes on their "copyrights," and therefore falls under the
   various protections provided for by the various copyright laws in the US and
   other countries.

   [...]

   USL is suing BSDI and UCB, claiming that the Net/2 tape contains copyrighted
   (or trade-secret-protected) USL code.  Naturally, the BSDI and UCB folks
   disagree, and I tend to agree with them.  At the moment, however, USL is not
   claiming that any code that looks and acts like UNIX is subject to their
   control, despite what a lot of other ignorant people seem to think.  The
   worst possible interpretation of USL's actions is that, since the Net/2 code
   was developed as partial-replacements of the USL/AT&T code, line by line at
   times, then the code is based up or otherwise derived from USL/AT&T code,
   and therefore falls under USL's copyright. 

   [...]

So let me get this straight: Apple sued people, claiming their
copyrights were infringed.  This, of course, was evil and perfectly
valid grounds for a boycott.  USL is in the process of suing some
people, claiming that their copyrights were infringed.  Of course,
this is completely understandable and we shouldn't hold it against
them.

USL is trying to protect the large investment of effort and money
that was spent producing Unix. Apple was trying to protect the
large investment of time and money they spent creating their user
interface.

By the way, USL also happens to be in business to make money.  And if
you claim that one shouldn't support Apple's hardware (which may cost
less to make than they sell it for...horrors!) by porting GNU stuff to
it, then doesn't it also follow that by porting GNU to System V Unix,
you are encouraging people to buy computers whose cost includes a Unix
license from USL (and how much does a LICENSE cost to make, compared
to what it is sold for?) and indirectly supporting USL and their
litiginous ways?

And hey, the AT&T/USL block has a history of suits even worse than
Apple's-- weren't they the ones who tried that nonsense with the
backing store stuff a while back?

I'm still a little confused about the difference between USL and Apple.

Roland
--
Roland Dreier                                        dreier@math.berkeley.edu
From: mike@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:22:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: majestix.MIKE.92Sep15122219
	<1992Sep15.042744.1220@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<ROSSINI.92Sep15102354@biosun4.harvard.edu>
	<1992Sep15.185227.2692@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Organization: CS Dept, University of Oregon

In article <1992Sep15.185227.2692@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Why _does_ the FSF allow its software to be ported to Apple machines, even if
>it refuses to do so itself?  Why doesn't the GPL contain a statement that
>licenses you to use the program only if you not only make source available
>with binaries, but also agree not to port the program to an Apple machine?

I should think it would be self-evident.  To include such restrictions
in its licenses would be for FSF to indulge in exactly the kind of software
licensing that it was founded to oppose.

For the FSF to simply refuse to port its software to Apples is perfectly
reasonable and in no way against the FSF's charter.

There's a big difference between:
	"We refuse to support Apples, and we encourage you not to either."
and:
	"We refuse to support Apples, and furthermore we absolutely
	 forbid you to run our software on them."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Why the boycott of Macintoshes?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:39:05 GMT

In article <rwm.715902814@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca> rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) writes:
>>about ideas that it didn't even originate.  But that's no reason to go
>>dumping core on its employees, who are not in control of what's going
>  Funny - I wish I had a better memory, but I vaguely remember there being 
>people up in arms about a donation made by the maffia.  Something about
>'blood money' being donated is still 'blood money', and by accepting it you
>are condoning the practices (robbing, murder, drug pushing, whatever) that
>helped to 'earn' that money.

At the very least, this could only possibly apply to people who started working
for Apple after the GNU boycott was publicized.  It is difficult to just quit
a job, especially for people with a family to support; since it is not possible
to just quit a job without harm, a better analogy is to someone being
blackmailed by the Mafia.  Someone who quits their job at Apple is harmed by
the loss of income; someone who tries to get back at the Mafia is harmed by
the loss of an arm, leg, business, etc.  If you tell someone to retaliate
against the Mafia, and they reply that if they do the Mafia will burn down
their business, are you "condoning their practices" if you treat them like it's
_their_ moral failing?
--
"the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi