Live data from Hacker News

James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

youtube.com

31–40 of 148 posts

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#31
post #6

Summary: Gosling gave the source for two guys in a garage (UniPress) so that they could turn Gosling Emacs into small business. RMS took the code and removed copyrights and made it into GNU Emacs. I don't think we would have Emacs around anymore if the Gosling Emacs would have continued as a business.

It seems that Stallman genuinely believes he was given permission to do so, although I the evidence doesn't support that.

Not that I liked the way it happened, as a daily Emacs user it's hard to resent the results.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#33
post #2

There's a transcript https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/20... This part starts at the bottom of page 29. Edit: I suspect the professor mentioned there is Mike Shamos and the transcript misspelled his name. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/shamos.html

Thanks for posting that... Here's the core piece: > And then Stallman freaks and he gets a copy of my source code, does a whole lot of editing. He doesn't actually-- You know, he edits, like, almost all of the copyright headers, but he doesn't edit all of them and he only kind of thinly edits it and then he re-releases it as GNU Emacs. And then IBM and Digital Equipment pick that up and start distributing it. So thes…

Based on what's described here [0] and above, I get the impression that RMS deliberately left the copyright for the parts of gosmacs he had retained in the interim - that he had the impression that he was permitted to use those parts and wasn't even trying to hide it.

I find it hard to believe that RMS was simply removing copyright from other listings. In his description found in [0], he was replacing a lot of it while using the display portion. Presumably that's all replaced after the lawsuit.

The history of EMACS and TECO predate Gosmacs, this all seems rather silly.

"EMACS is available for distribution to sites running the DEC Twenex operating system. It is distributed on a basis of communal sharing, which means that all improvements must be given back to me to be incorporated and distributed." [1]

[0] https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html

[1] http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5736/AIM-519A....

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#34
post #20

From a 2002 Stallman lecture: There was no free software Emacs editor that ran on Unix. I did, however, have a friend who had participated in developing Gosling's Emacs. Gosling had given him, by email, permission to distribute his own version. He proposed to me that I use that version. Then I discovered that Gosling's Emacs did not have a real Lisp. It had a programming language that was known as ‘mocklisp’, which l…

> Gosling had given him, by email, permission to distribute his own version. He proposed to me that I use that version. It's important here to note that Stallman does not claim it was his own brainchild, and did give Gosling credit. However, from I understand, the email that Stallman claims gave said permissions does not exist (or at least could not be found) and I'm not sure that Stallman's friend confirmed Stallman…

Fen Labalme did confirm Stallman's claim, but could not find the email; remember this is in the days of backups on 9-track tapes, and he was looking for an email he had presumably deleted several years earlier.

> It's important here to note that Stallman does not claim it was his own brainchild, and did give Gosling credit.

This is true in a very limited way, but by itself it is a very misleading partial truth. Stallman gave Gosling credit for Gosmacs, not for EMACS.

Stallman had been working on EMACS on ITS on the PDP-10 for years before Gosling started writing his version, but the inception of EMACS was, as I understand it, a collaboration between Stallman, Steele, and Moon — a set of macros for ITS TECO, which was maintained by Stallman https://github.com/PDP-10/its/issues/1633. Gosling's Emacs wasn't even the second Emacs; Multics Emacs was Bernie Greenberg's reimplementation of the PDP-10 EMACS Stallman was the maintainer of, and it was the first (corrected by trn: second) Emacs to use Lisp as its scripting language, which is where Gosling got the idea. EINE (the first version of Lisp-Machine Emacs, as trn corrected me below) and ZWEI also preceded Gosmacs.

From the Emacs FAQ https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/efaq/Ori...:

> Emacs originally was an acronym for Editor MACroS. RMS says he “picked the name Emacs because E was not in use as an abbreviation on ITS at the time.” The first Emacs was a set of macros written in 1976 at MIT by RMS for the editor TECO (Text Editor and COrrector, originally Tape Editor and COrrector) under ITS (the Incompatible Timesharing System) on a PDP-10. RMS had already extended TECO with a “real-time” full-screen mode with reprogrammable keys. Emacs was started by Guy Steele as a project to unify the many divergent TECO command sets and key bindings at MIT, and completed by RMS.

Gosling wrote Gosmacs in 1981, five years later, as a copy of Stallman's work; Stallman published a widely-cited paper that year describing many features of EMACS which were unusual or unique at the time, but are now the standard way to design text editors: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5736/AIM-519A.... Gosling sold his Unix clone of Stallman's Emacs to UniPress in 1983, after Stallman had spent seven years writing the editor Gosling had copied; Stallman's version had perhaps a thousand users before Gosling wrote a line of Gosmacs.

Stallman tells the story in 2002 in the lecture linked above. Other people like Bernie Greenberg confirm Stallman's version.

I find it quite dispiriting that 34 years after The Great Emacs Copyright Debate was conclusively settled (by Stallman replacing the disputed redisplay code with a better algorithm, three months after the initial release of the first version of GNU Emacs and the ensuing hue and cry) we are still having to rebut Gosling's baseless slander of the man whose work Gosling copied to get rich.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#35
post #18

What is it, a next generation of #metoo movement? Crowds of developers who were (allegedly) wronged 30+ years ago will come forth with their accusations?

> developers who were (allegedly) wronged 30+ years ago I listened to it and didn't hear the story of a developer whining about being wronged 30 years prior. The guy says clearly that he wanted to move on from Emacs. On the other hand, it's the story of an alleged source code theft and copyright violation. I hope the story is false but I don't think it's irrelevant because 30 something years have passed.

Is there anyway he can get the stolen items back though? He should either go to the police and request them to help him get the stolen items back. Or maybe talk to his insurance company, they might help to compensate him for the loss. But a helpful idea; if they've stolen something and then put copies of that on a website that is freely accessible, I would suggest just copying it, so that both him and they have the same thing. That's a great thing with the digital world, everyone can have copies of things. I am surprised they stole something when they could just have copied it. I'm guessing it's some older individuals that don't know the possibilities of modern day technology to make copies.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#36
post #4

Ouch, that's no small claim. I was just learning emacs because it's GPL... But if it was stolen then, well, that's an entirely different story... What about the other tools Stallman wrote ?

Don't learn emacs because it's GPL, or because of who wrote it. Learn emacs because it's a great tool.

Learning great tools that aren’t under the GPL may leak to lock-in and pain in the future.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#37
post #23

What is it, a next generation of #metoo movement? Crowds of developers who were (allegedly) wronged 30+ years ago will come forth with their accusations?

Hold up, is there something wrong with: 1. the #metoo movement 2. the idea that someone would want to tell their side of a famous story ? Even ignoring the above (though I hope you're not insinuating some issue with #1) this is a few minutes, roughly halfway through ~6 hours of video. It's not like Gosling has set out to make a hit-piece on RMS

Uh, yes, there is something very wrong with #1. Certainly exposing bad actors is good. But making all men the enemy is even worse and that's what that movement turned into.

And anyone who thinks this RMS story is casually coming up now by random chance is naive. Stallman is under active attacked and the storm has not finished raging. You can disagree on whether it's deserved, but it's VERY old news that was done with ages ago, so why are we discussing this now? Oh right, there's blood in the water, let the frenzy begin...

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#39
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gosling had given him, by email, permission to distribute his own version. He proposed to me that I use that version. It's important here to note that Stallman does not claim it was his own brainchild, and did give Gosling credit. However, from I understand, the email that Stallman claims gave said permissions does not exist (or at least could not be found) and I'm not sure that Stallman's friend confirmed Stallman…

Fen Labalme did confirm Stallman's claim, but could not find the email; remember this is in the days of backups on 9-track tapes, and he was looking for an email he had presumably deleted several years earlier. > It's important here to note that Stallman does not claim it was his own brainchild, and did give Gosling credit. This is true in a very limited way, but by itself it is a very misleading partial truth. Stall…

> Fen Labalme did confirm Stallman's claim, but could not find the email; remember this is in the days of backups on 9-track tapes.

Ah, good to know, thanks!

> This is true in a very limited way, but by itself it is a very misleading partial truth. Stallman gave Gosling credit for Gosmacs, not for EMACS.

> Stallman had been working on EMACS on ITS on the PDP-10 for years before Gosling started writing his version, but the inception of EMACS was, as I understand it, a collaboration between Stallman and Steele. Gosling's Emacs wasn't even the second Emacs; Multics Emacs was Bernie Greenberg's reimplementation of the PDP-10 EMACS Stallman was the maintainer of, and it was the first Emacs to use Lisp as its scripting language, which is where Gosling got the idea. EINE, ZWEI, and Lisp-Machine Emacs also preceded Gosmacs.

I'd forgotten about the PDP-10 and Guy Steele.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't learn emacs because it's GPL, or because of who wrote it. Learn emacs because it's a great tool.

Learning great tools that aren’t under the GPL may leak to lock-in and pain in the future.

As an OSS nerd working in today's corporate culture, I can assure you that GPL is its own form of lock-in. I had to abandon some of my favorite tools when I left university.
Post reply on HN