Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 148 posts

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#121

Post by kentrado »

craigsmansion wrote: post #27

> I found these two guys who ran this little company called Unipress, it was literally two guys in a garage, and I said, "Look, this needs to be free for universities and not ridiculous for everybody else." Gosling sold them Gosling emacs. Before that he apparently "distributed it freely with no copyright notice." Although Gosling wrote Gosling Emacs, it was based on the plans he and Richard Stallman had developed fo…

>Gosling made millions at Sun Microsystems. That's a little more than needing "food on the table" and "a roof over one's head". Stallman also could have made similar money, but didn't because he thought other things were more important. That's everyone's choice to make, but putting down others because they approached something differently is just bad form.

Look where that got him. Homeless, disgraced and without a penny to show for it. Let this be a cautionary tale about martyrdom.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#122

Post by klyrs »

lliamander wrote: post #45
klyrs wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I had to abandon some of my favorite tools when I left university. Tools, or libraries? The distinction I'm making here is between code that gets distributed with the final product, and code that only runs on your machine or just internally in the corporate network. I can understand a company not wanting to intermix GPL code with proprietary code that is shipped to customers, but not being able to use GPL software…

Libraries are tools. But like, if UI was my job I'd be delighted to adapt inkscape for my company's oss offerings, but Legal says to stay away from GPL.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#123

Post by pjmlp »

nl wrote: post #91

It's worth noting the historical context of this: Gosling and Stallman have always been rivals. One of the reasons it took so long for Java to be open sourced was because Gosling was so adamantly against it - in part because of his hatred of Stallman. Stallman started the whole open source movement in part because he thought it was wrong that Gosling could put restrictions on distribution of Emacs.

Stallman started the open source movement due to a Xerox printer driver!

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#124

Post by traderjane »

kentrado wrote: post #121
craigsmansion wrote: post #27

> I found these two guys who ran this little company called Unipress, it was literally two guys in a garage, and I said, "Look, this needs to be free for universities and not ridiculous for everybody else." Gosling sold them Gosling emacs. Before that he apparently "distributed it freely with no copyright notice." Although Gosling wrote Gosling Emacs, it was based on the plans he and Richard Stallman had developed fo…

>Gosling made millions at Sun Microsystems. That's a little more than needing "food on the table" and "a roof over one's head". Stallman also could have made similar money, but didn't because he thought other things were more important. That's everyone's choice to make, but putting down others because they approached something differently is just bad form. Look where that got him. Homeless, disgraced and without a pe…

One cannot say stupid things without some f u money.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#125

Post by mikeeusa »

strenholme wrote: post #111
bbanyc wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking at the Gosmacs source right now, and just above the skull-and-bones warning it says "Copyright (c) 1981,1980 James Gosling" If nothing else, Gosling had a valid copyright. Mind you, there were no license terms on any file and it was distributed as source code.

Since Gosling never initiated legal proceedings against RMS, and since the statute of limitations for copyright is three to five years [1], the issue is moot today. [1] https://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_l...

>Since Gosling never initiated legal proceedings against RMS, and since the statute of limitations for copyright is three to five years [1], the issue is moot today.

You are wrong on the law. An ongoing violation keep such a claim alive. The statute of limitations runs from the last violation (or; when a violation was discovered last (the circuits are split here)) A derivative work would be a violation, regardless of whether if "all the code was replaced": it would still be a derived work.

So. If Gosling's claims in the video were true; and his copyright was proper; and there was not a clean-room reimplementation (by someone not having access to his source code) in GNU EMACS (if all this was true):

Then: Current GNU EMACS would /still/ be in violation of Gosling's copyright.

However, the facts are disputed as RMS' EMACS predates Goslings' in the record.

It's like you're not even a lawyer. What do you do with your time strenholme? Make money for your wuuuhhmmann and "your" kids? Who rule over you.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#126

Post by mikeeusa »

I see it's attack RMS day 17 today.

I bet Gosling doesn't even like cute young girls, but is happy with whatever women America allows him to be ruled over by (woman is the master in the USA); but all those millions don't get him a virgin young girl as brides.

Even a goat farmer in Afghanistan has such good things. But a top guy in the USA: no way.

Remember: A man isn't a man unless he rules over others. RMS rules over the hearts of thousands, maybe more, what does Gosling rule over? And what is it worth if it doesn't get him the traditional pleasures the Prophets knew?

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#127

Post by dredmorbius »

wbl wrote: post #119
bbanyc wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's a story, he just hates the VC/startup scene for exploiting workers and ruining San Francisco. And he's not wrong.

NIMBYS ruined SF. It has Peter Pan syndrome instead of being the greatest most modern city in America.

Por que no los dos?

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#128

Post by mikeeusa »

I see it's attack RMS day 17 today.

I bet Gosling doesn't even like cute young girls, but is happy with whatever women America allows him to be ruled over by (woman is the master in the USA); but all those millions don't get him a virgin young girl as brides.

Even a goat farmer in Afghanistan has such good things. But a top guy in the USA: no way.

Remember: A man isn't a man unless he rules over others. RMS rules over the hearts of thousands, maybe more, what does Gosling rule over? And what is it worth if it doesn't get him the traditional pleasures the Prophets knew?.

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#129

Post by mikeeusa »

klyrs wrote: post #40
saagarjha wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wage-slave think's he's still an OSS nerd...

Re: James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

#130

Post by mikeeusa3 »

>strenholme 13 hours ago wrote: >Since Gosling never initiated legal proceedings against RMS, and since the statute of limitations for copyright is three to five years [1], the issue is moot today. >https://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_l...

You are wrong on the law. An ongoing violation keep such a claim alive. The statute of limitations runs from the last violation (or; when a violation was discovered last (the circuits are split here)) A derivative work would be a violation, regardless of whether if "all the code was replaced": it would still be a derived work.

So. If Gosling's claims in the video were true; and his copyright was proper; and there was not a clean-room reimplementation (by someone not having access to his source code) in GNU EMACS (if all this was true):

Then: Current GNU EMACS would /still/ be in violation of Gosling's copyright.

However, the facts are disputed as RMS' EMACS predates Goslings' in the record.

It's like you're not even a lawyer. What do you do with your time strenholme? Make money for your wuuuhhmmann and "your" kids? Who rule over you. _

Post reply on HN