141–148 of 148 posts
James Gosling is responsible for Java which supports cubicle hells where programmers are viewed as interchangeable spigots. Why do people without any intellect whatsoever talk about intellectual copyright? Hillarious.
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...
James Gosling is responsible for Java which supports cubicle hells where programmers are viewed as interchangeable spigots. Why do people without any intellect whatsoever talk about intellectual copyright? Hillarious.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A copyright notice is not required for copyright; by default in the US, everything copyrightable is copyrighted unless it comes with a public domain notice. If there's no license attached, or no agreement somewhere, then you do not have legal right to redistribute someone else's work, even if they gave it to you freely. Gosling was perfectly within his rights to sell gosemacs to Unipress (though note that Gosling nev…
That only started to be true in 1988, when the US adopted the Berne Convention with its copyright law. In 1981 or 1983, anything without an explicit copyright declaration was considered public domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
https://github.com/ArchMach/Sine/blob/master/papers/thesis.p... SINE
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://github.com/ArchMach/Sine/blob/master/papers/thesis.p... SINE
Thank you! Indeed, SINE is another EMACS in Lisp that predates Gosmacs.
Emacs (TECO)
EINE, ZWEI, Zmacs (Lisp Machine Lisp)
SINE (PL/1, Lisp)
Multics Emacs (Maclisp)
VINE (Fortran)
FINE (BLISS)
BTL Emacs (C)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you! Indeed, SINE is another EMACS in Lisp that predates Gosmacs.
Thus, Early Emacs: Emacs (TECO) EINE, ZWEI, Zmacs (Lisp Machine Lisp) SINE (PL/1, Lisp) Multics Emacs (Maclisp) VINE (Fortran) FINE (BLISS) BTL Emacs (C)
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.
Well, I have as part of my job duties scanned dependencies of source code to make sure it didn’t inadvertently include any GPL-licensed libraries. The GPL does not control use, it controls distribution. So, using Emacs and GCC as one’s toolchain does not require a company’s code being made open source. However, using a GPL licensed library “taints” any and all code which touches it. With the complex mazes of dependen…
>>> This is a serious problems for companies selling software
No. It is a serious problem for companies trying to make proprietary software. That's quite different. The monetary aspect of the question is independent of that. That is, you can perfectly sell GPL programs. What you can't do is prevent competitors and users of reusing it the way they want to.
GPL is a stance against proprietary software, not commercial software.
(now, I'll readily admit that this seriously undermines many commercial prospects, but that's just a consequence)