13 ms·

James Gosling on Richard Stallman [video]

189 points by chx 7y ago

sp332 7y ago
There's a transcript https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2019/10/102781080-05-01-acc.pdf 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 http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/shamos.html
- devicetray0 7y ago
  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 these, so the two guys in the garage who had been doing okay suddenly find that IBM and DEC are distributing their thing for free and they're dying. So they decided to sue DEC and IBM and they got a, you know, and that turned into a big, big court case. They won. It was kind of a pyrrhic victory. You know, so IBM and DEC paid them some damages, but that didn't stop GNU Emacs. .. ..he hadn't actually changed all of the copyright notices. So it was like, duh. But then it sort of took on its own life and it's become the GNU Emacs that everybody uses.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    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 https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html [1] http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5736/AIM-519A.pdf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5736/AIM-519A....
  - buckminster 7y ago
    And right after that Gosling describes how he did much the same thing with Wirth's pascal compiler! He thinks that's OK because there was no copyright notice attached.
    - cjensen 7y ago
      He may be right. The law about copyright notices changed on 1978 Jan 1 [1], so if Wirth's compiler predated the change to US law... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976
dontkneatte 7y ago
> Nobody goes after Stallman because "you can't sue a homeless man"
wiz21c 7y ago
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 ?
- sp332 7y ago
  Well it's big in a gossip sense, but what's actually going to change?
  - Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
    history. and that's a big deal.
- petre 7y ago
  No small amount: gcc, gdb, gmake, made bison yacc compatible.
- notfashion 7y ago
  If I were you I wouldn't make a personal ethical stand on this (by not learning GNU software). If you're the only one who does it, it can realistically only hurt you.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Don't learn emacs because it's GPL, or because of who wrote it. Learn emacs because it's a great tool.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Learning great tools that aren’t under the GPL may leak to lock-in and pain in the future.
    - klyrs 7y ago
      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.
Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago
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?
- tomjakubowski 7y ago
  "Interviewed by Hansen Hsu and Marc Weber on 2019-03-15 in Mountain View, CA"
- namirez 7y ago
  > 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.
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    As far as I'm concerned source code cannot be stolen.
  - TheNorthman 7y ago
    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.
    - namirez 7y ago
      "Stealing" in the context of intangible entities is equivalent to appropriation without permission. It has nothing to do with conservation of the total number of intangible entities. If you don't like the choice of word, use appropriation or plagiarism instead. The basic argument doesn't change though.
nabla9 7y ago
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.
- lliamander 7y ago
  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.
tengbretson 7y ago
James Gosling sounds like an Uncle Rico.
kstenerud 7y ago
Most of this is verified in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs
- synt4x1k0 7y ago
  which uses this video as a source... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs#cite_note-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs#cite_note-6
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eqvinox 7y ago
Considering RMS' social skills and choice of priorities, I'm not exactly surprised by this. But yeah, seems to be old news randomly bubbling up… not gonna get excited about this.
Ajedi32 7y ago
Anyone have any more info on the court case he referenced? I'm kinda surprised this isn't already common knowledge, given that IBM actually got sued over it.
tjr 7y ago
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 looks syntactically like Lisp, but didn't have the data structures of Lisp. So programs were not data, and vital elements of Lisp were missing. Its data structures were strings, numbers and a few other specialized things. I concluded I couldn't use it and had to replace it all, the first step of which was to write an actual Lisp interpreter. I gradually adapted every part of the editor based on real Lisp data structures, rather than ad hoc data structures, making the data structures of the internals of the editor exposable and manipulable by the user's Lisp programs. The one exception was redisplay. For a long time, redisplay was sort of an alternate world. The editor would enter the world of redisplay and things would go on with very special data structures that were not safe for garbage collection, not safe for interruption, and you couldn't run any Lisp programs during that. We've changed that since — it's now possible to run Lisp code during redisplay. It's quite a convenient thing. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html
- lliamander 7y ago
  > 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's claim.
  - kragen 7y ago
    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 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/Origin-of-the-term-Emacs.html 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.pdf 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.
youdontknowtho 7y ago
The shot at Stallman's hygiene was unnecessary. It was the interviewer, not Gosling, that brought it up...still.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  His personal hygiene is above reproach.
markmm 7y ago
I found watching this at 1.5x speed was good as James ums a lot.
- agumonkey 7y ago
  So very java of him
craigsmansion 7y ago
> 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 for a new, widely portable Emacs. > And, you know, I realize I'm a radical. I like to actually have a bed to sleep in and food and I will occasionally sleep in my office, but not as a regular thing. 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. (edit: spelling name)
- floren 7y ago
  Gosling.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  Yeah, they were going to sell it as a small business. Gosling said that once RMS found out he freaked and ripped out any copyright headers and released as is for free. Then IBM and DEC used RMS Emacs with their machines to which the two guys sued and won but they didn't kill RMS Emacs so it was a "Pyrric victory." In court the source code for both was the same and RMS had even forgotten to replace a few of the original copyright headers.
- cptskippy 7y ago
  They were discussing University licenses and legal battles that lead Gosling to include a license in his source for Emacs. > Gosling: But then <pause> then there was at one point <pause> I kinda realized at one point <pause> um <pause> I was ither <pause> I was ither going to be Mr. Emacs for the rest of my life or graduate. I couldn't actually do both <pause> um <pause> so I decided I wanted to graduate. > Interviewer: So then but your display algorithm got incorporated by Richard Stallman into GNU Emacs? > Gosling: Well <pause> Actually it was more than that. He just took all the source code. > Interviewer: oh ok > Gosling: Right? It was.. It started out as all of the source code and he just edited the copyright notices. > Interviewer: Really? So he just essentially stole your program? > Gosling: Yeah <pause> so <sigh> um > Interviewer: And claimed it as his own? > Gosling: Yeah <pause> At this point Gosling reiterates his revelation about either graduating or remaining "Mr. Emacs" and the explains how he went around to "all the usual suspects" at MIT and UCLA asking if anyone wanted to take up maintenance of Emacs. Everyone turned him down, including Stallman who Gosling said responded with a "frothing hell no" and explained that Stallman's position was that Unix was the spawn of the devil. Gosling then discusses University licenses, litigation, IP, and opensource as reasons why he decided to license Emacs and ask for letters acknowledging the license from people he distributed the source code to. Gosling then explains how the license for Emacs ended up with two guys in a garage but never actually says that he sold it to them, just that Emacs should remain free for universities. He explained how when Stallman found out about the license transfer, Stallman freaked out. Gosling then expresses some remorse he felt for the two guys in a garage because Stallman proceeded to release GNU Emacs and, despite legal victories against DEC and IBM, the two guys were force to abandon Emacs because they had no legal recourse against Stallman. The interviewer then asked why no one went after Stallman and Gosling explained that Stallman was essentially homeless and you gain nothing from suing a homeless man. Gosling was trying to explain delicately and uncomfortably that Stallman had different views on economic models when the interviewer then took a jib at Stallman's hygiene. Gosling, who is already visibly uncomfortable discussing the topic, deflected by saying that they had different opinions and that Gosling preferred to have food on the table and a roof over his head.
flowerlad 7y ago
It is a bit late to be arguing about the IP in Emacs. Only 4.5% of developers use Emacs today. More than 50% use VSCode. See https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology-_-most-popular-development-environments https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology-_-...
- NotCamelCase 7y ago
  You don't really expect to find many Emacs users on a platform where 30% of developers uses Notepad++ though, do you? :) I personally wouldn't.
  - B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
    Sigh. Many years ago, I wrote tens of thousands of lines of code in Emacs, wasted many hours in elisp macros, etc. Nowadays Notepad++ is OK by me.
    - NotCamelCase 7y ago
      I don't think I wrote more than 20 lines of code in Emacs, and all my previous attempts to learn it properly have died off boredom. So, I'm not even the kind to stick to it, but I know some who do and you won't find many of them on StackOverflow taking surveys.
- esotericn 7y ago
  4.5% of developers is a bloody enormous number. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps half a million. I'd imagine it's fewer than that, but still, that really is a big deal.
- jefft255 7y ago
  I think your link is more of a flagrant example of sample bias than anything else. I like Visual studio code; but I'd be really curious what the real numbers are! My guess is that Visual Studio actually wins.
lazyjones 7y ago
XEmacs docs sound a little bit different: http://xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/internals_3.html#Through-Version-18 http://xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/internals_3.html#T... > As described above, Emacs began life in the mid-1970’s as a series of editor macros for TECO, an early editor on the PDP-10. In the early 1980’s it was rewritten in C as a collaboration between Richard M. Stallman (RMS) and James Gosling (the creator of Java); its extension language was known as Mocklisp. This version of Emacs-in-C formed the basis for the early versions of GNU Emacs and also for Gosling’s Unipress Emacs, a commercial product. Because of bad blood between the two over the issue of commercialism, RMS pretty much disowned this collaboration, referring to it as “Gosling Emacs”. My impression is that "Gosling Emacs" is misunderstood as "Gosling wrote all of it", even though it just meant "the dirty commercial version of Gosling and RMS Emacs".
- kragen 7y ago
  This version is flatly contradicted both by the Gosling interview linked and the Stallman speech linked above; Stallman says his friend (Fen Labalme) had contributed to Gosling's version, but not that he (Stallman) had, when Stallman decided to base GNU Emacs on Gosling's implementation. I suspect that the XEmacs docs just got confused about the history, and Stallman didn't want to hear anything about XEmacs/Lucid Emacs, much less read over their documentation to correct minor historical errors.
bane 7y ago
So maybe we should call it Gosling/Emacs?
foobar_ 7y ago
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.
- jefft255 7y ago
  Java is a decent enough programming language and, even if that wasn't true, this guy is not responsible for the "cubicle hells" you talk about. I don't know what kind of reasoning you applied here.
  - mikeeusa5 7y ago
    > I don't know what kind of reasoning you applied here. He's a but-for cause thereof, white wage-slave retard. The preceding post is using tort-law causation logic obviously, fucking moron. >DUURRR I DONT KNOW WHAT I DONT KNOW BUT I KNOW EVERYTHING!!!! -t. white fuck.
- dang 7y ago
  Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - foobar_ 7y ago
    Who am I attacking here?
rb808 7y ago
Wow 3hr video only has 1000 views. Looks great. (bookmarked for later) :)
Hitton 7y ago
This sounds quite damning and makes me reconsider Stallman's character. Nevertheless it's an account of only one party, which has to be also considered. Dunno why people who were against RMS didn't try to argument with this instead innocuous Epstein comments.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Because the Epstein comments, although just comments, were made on a subject a lot more sensitive to the eyes of general public; in this time and place once you're hit on that subject you're labeled for life. If the purpose was to discredit RMS in order to get rid of him and affect negatively all Free Software principles, that was the way to go. Had someone used the Emacs argument, he could have replied either with details in his defense (if he had any) or alternatively tell about the number of GPL violations a lot of companies commit when they literally steal software written by volunteers for their profit without giving nothing in return, violations he and others at GNU/FSF contributed for decades to fight against, making the whole accusation of stealing Emacs code, even if proved true, next to ridicule in comparison. I'm not saying he is being attacked on purpose by people with a hidden agenda, however the timing and the number of simultaneous attacks by multiple directions doesn't sound normal.
1000units 7y ago
Look how far people are reaching to tarnish Stallman's reputation. This is laughable.
nl 7y ago
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.
- squarefoot 7y ago
  Upvoted, not because I may agree or not with your post (I lack the necessary knowledge to comment on it) but because it encourages further discussion and merely downvoting it without giving any sound reason is plain stupid. May I ask to those who know more to share their knowledge instead of acting as trigger happy cowboys? Thanks.
- pjmlp 7y ago
  Stallman started the open source movement due to a Xerox printer driver! https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201d-redux-a-testimonial-about-the-injustice-of-proprietary-firmware https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...
  - nl 7y ago
    Yes that's true too! But the context of that story needs to be understood: in the Lisp dominated world of 1980's MIT, redistributing EMACS was a big deal.
jasoneckert 7y ago
"You can't sue a homeless person" LOL!!!
bbanyc 7y ago
The first public release of GNU Emacs was 13.1 in March 1985. In July 1985, 16.56 was released with (RMS claims) all of Gosling's code replaced with new implementations. So we're talking about four months here. I think Gosling is claiming that some of his own code was still in there, regardless of what RMS said he rewrote. Just from casually poking the source code I can scrounge up [1], it doesn't look like there's any Gosling code in GNU 16.56 or later versions. But there's a lot of code in there so who knows. As a side note, as late as 1995 [2] Unipress was still trying to sell its Gosling derivative starting at $395 a seat. It had a nice list of features, including "Demonstrably better than vi", but I bet it didn't let you psychoanalyze Zippy. [1]: https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961125071933/http://www.unipress.com/cat/emacs.html http://web.archive.org/web/19961125071933/http://www.unipres...
agumonkey 7y ago
Funny how the recent minsky affair made me biased. I watched this video thinking 'knew it, stallman was evil all along' whenever it just examplifies how history is denser than it seems.
mikeeusa 7y ago
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?
mikeeusa 7y ago
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?.
mikeeusa3 7y ago
>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_law/copyright_statute_limitations.htm 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. _
mikeeusa3 7y ago
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? _
mikeeusa3 7y ago
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? -__
mikeeusa3 7y ago
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?+
mikeeusa5 7y ago
>strenholme wrote: >Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source. How is it that I can tell that you are a layman idiot, and also a white? Ask yourself: is my code that links to a GPL library a non-separable work. And is my code that links to a GPL library derived from that library? No and No. Sure: you may be sued. But the copyright holder of the GPL'd library will not likely win. These are simple concepts. Are you white programmers dumb idiots? Note: Copyright holders of GPL'd software don't even sue blatant violators such as GRSecurity and Brad Spengler ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c... ) who create violating non-separable directly derivative works, adding no-redistribution-or-else additional restrictions to the work in blatant violation of section 6 of the license (GPLv2). strenholme: this is the second point of law you've been corrected on. Since you're not a laywer, maybe you should stop commenting on the law? Because you are a stupid idiot?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

189 points by chx 7y ago

There's a transcript https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2019/10/102781080-05-01-acc.pdf 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 http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/shamos.html

devicetray0 7y ago
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 these, so the two guys in the garage who had been doing okay suddenly find that IBM and DEC are distributing their thing for free and they're dying. So they decided to sue DEC and IBM and they got a, you know, and that turned into a big, big court case. They won. It was kind of a pyrrhic victory. You know, so IBM and DEC paid them some damages, but that didn't stop GNU Emacs. .. ..he hadn't actually changed all of the copyright notices. So it was like, duh. But then it sort of took on its own life and it's become the GNU Emacs that everybody uses.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  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 https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html [1] http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5736/AIM-519A.pdf http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5736/AIM-519A....
- buckminster 7y ago
  And right after that Gosling describes how he did much the same thing with Wirth's pascal compiler! He thinks that's OK because there was no copyright notice attached.
  - cjensen 7y ago
    He may be right. The law about copyright notices changed on 1978 Jan 1 [1], so if Wirth's compiler predated the change to US law... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

dontkneatte 7y ago

> Nobody goes after Stallman because "you can't sue a homeless man"

wiz21c 7y ago

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 ?

sp332 7y ago
Well it's big in a gossip sense, but what's actually going to change?
- Ill_ban_myself 7y ago
  history. and that's a big deal.
petre 7y ago
No small amount: gcc, gdb, gmake, made bison yacc compatible.
notfashion 7y ago
If I were you I wouldn't make a personal ethical stand on this (by not learning GNU software). If you're the only one who does it, it can realistically only hurt you.
lliamander 7y ago
Don't learn emacs because it's GPL, or because of who wrote it. Learn emacs because it's a great tool.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Learning great tools that aren’t under the GPL may leak to lock-in and pain in the future.
  - klyrs 7y ago
    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.

Andrew_nenakhov 7y ago

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?

tomjakubowski 7y ago
"Interviewed by Hansen Hsu and Marc Weber on 2019-03-15 in Mountain View, CA"
namirez 7y ago
> 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.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  As far as I'm concerned source code cannot be stolen.
- TheNorthman 7y ago
  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.
  - namirez 7y ago
    "Stealing" in the context of intangible entities is equivalent to appropriation without permission. It has nothing to do with conservation of the total number of intangible entities. If you don't like the choice of word, use appropriation or plagiarism instead. The basic argument doesn't change though.

nabla9 7y ago

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.

lliamander 7y ago
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.

tengbretson 7y ago

James Gosling sounds like an Uncle Rico.

kstenerud 7y ago

Most of this is verified in the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs

synt4x1k0 7y ago
which uses this video as a source... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs#cite_note-6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gosling_Emacs#cite_note-6

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

eqvinox 7y ago

Considering RMS' social skills and choice of priorities, I'm not exactly surprised by this. But yeah, seems to be old news randomly bubbling up… not gonna get excited about this.

Ajedi32 7y ago

Anyone have any more info on the court case he referenced? I'm kinda surprised this isn't already common knowledge, given that IBM actually got sued over it.

tjr 7y ago

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 looks syntactically like Lisp, but didn't have the data structures of Lisp. So programs were not data, and vital elements of Lisp were missing. Its data structures were strings, numbers and a few other specialized things. I concluded I couldn't use it and had to replace it all, the first step of which was to write an actual Lisp interpreter. I gradually adapted every part of the editor based on real Lisp data structures, rather than ad hoc data structures, making the data structures of the internals of the editor exposable and manipulable by the user's Lisp programs. The one exception was redisplay. For a long time, redisplay was sort of an alternate world. The editor would enter the world of redisplay and things would go on with very special data structures that were not safe for garbage collection, not safe for interruption, and you couldn't run any Lisp programs during that. We've changed that since — it's now possible to run Lisp code during redisplay. It's quite a convenient thing. https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.en.html

lliamander 7y ago
> 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's claim.
- kragen 7y ago
  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 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/Origin-of-the-term-Emacs.html 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.pdf 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.

youdontknowtho 7y ago

The shot at Stallman's hygiene was unnecessary. It was the interviewer, not Gosling, that brought it up...still.

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
His personal hygiene is above reproach.

markmm 7y ago

I found watching this at 1.5x speed was good as James ums a lot.

agumonkey 7y ago
So very java of him

craigsmansion 7y ago

> 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 for a new, widely portable Emacs. > And, you know, I realize I'm a radical. I like to actually have a bed to sleep in and food and I will occasionally sleep in my office, but not as a regular thing. 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. (edit: spelling name)

floren 7y ago
Gosling.
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
Yeah, they were going to sell it as a small business. Gosling said that once RMS found out he freaked and ripped out any copyright headers and released as is for free. Then IBM and DEC used RMS Emacs with their machines to which the two guys sued and won but they didn't kill RMS Emacs so it was a "Pyrric victory." In court the source code for both was the same and RMS had even forgotten to replace a few of the original copyright headers.
cptskippy 7y ago
They were discussing University licenses and legal battles that lead Gosling to include a license in his source for Emacs. > Gosling: But then <pause> then there was at one point <pause> I kinda realized at one point <pause> um <pause> I was ither <pause> I was ither going to be Mr. Emacs for the rest of my life or graduate. I couldn't actually do both <pause> um <pause> so I decided I wanted to graduate. > Interviewer: So then but your display algorithm got incorporated by Richard Stallman into GNU Emacs? > Gosling: Well <pause> Actually it was more than that. He just took all the source code. > Interviewer: oh ok > Gosling: Right? It was.. It started out as all of the source code and he just edited the copyright notices. > Interviewer: Really? So he just essentially stole your program? > Gosling: Yeah <pause> so <sigh> um > Interviewer: And claimed it as his own? > Gosling: Yeah <pause> At this point Gosling reiterates his revelation about either graduating or remaining "Mr. Emacs" and the explains how he went around to "all the usual suspects" at MIT and UCLA asking if anyone wanted to take up maintenance of Emacs. Everyone turned him down, including Stallman who Gosling said responded with a "frothing hell no" and explained that Stallman's position was that Unix was the spawn of the devil. Gosling then discusses University licenses, litigation, IP, and opensource as reasons why he decided to license Emacs and ask for letters acknowledging the license from people he distributed the source code to. Gosling then explains how the license for Emacs ended up with two guys in a garage but never actually says that he sold it to them, just that Emacs should remain free for universities. He explained how when Stallman found out about the license transfer, Stallman freaked out. Gosling then expresses some remorse he felt for the two guys in a garage because Stallman proceeded to release GNU Emacs and, despite legal victories against DEC and IBM, the two guys were force to abandon Emacs because they had no legal recourse against Stallman. The interviewer then asked why no one went after Stallman and Gosling explained that Stallman was essentially homeless and you gain nothing from suing a homeless man. Gosling was trying to explain delicately and uncomfortably that Stallman had different views on economic models when the interviewer then took a jib at Stallman's hygiene. Gosling, who is already visibly uncomfortable discussing the topic, deflected by saying that they had different opinions and that Gosling preferred to have food on the table and a roof over his head.

flowerlad 7y ago

It is a bit late to be arguing about the IP in Emacs. Only 4.5% of developers use Emacs today. More than 50% use VSCode. See https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology-_-most-popular-development-environments https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2019#technology-_-...

NotCamelCase 7y ago
You don't really expect to find many Emacs users on a platform where 30% of developers uses Notepad++ though, do you? :) I personally wouldn't.
- B1FF_PSUVM 7y ago
  Sigh. Many years ago, I wrote tens of thousands of lines of code in Emacs, wasted many hours in elisp macros, etc. Nowadays Notepad++ is OK by me.
  - NotCamelCase 7y ago
    I don't think I wrote more than 20 lines of code in Emacs, and all my previous attempts to learn it properly have died off boredom. So, I'm not even the kind to stick to it, but I know some who do and you won't find many of them on StackOverflow taking surveys.
esotericn 7y ago
4.5% of developers is a bloody enormous number. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps half a million. I'd imagine it's fewer than that, but still, that really is a big deal.
jefft255 7y ago
I think your link is more of a flagrant example of sample bias than anything else. I like Visual studio code; but I'd be really curious what the real numbers are! My guess is that Visual Studio actually wins.

lazyjones 7y ago

XEmacs docs sound a little bit different: http://xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/internals_3.html#Through-Version-18 http://xemacs.org/Documentation/21.5/html/internals_3.html#T... > As described above, Emacs began life in the mid-1970’s as a series of editor macros for TECO, an early editor on the PDP-10. In the early 1980’s it was rewritten in C as a collaboration between Richard M. Stallman (RMS) and James Gosling (the creator of Java); its extension language was known as Mocklisp. This version of Emacs-in-C formed the basis for the early versions of GNU Emacs and also for Gosling’s Unipress Emacs, a commercial product. Because of bad blood between the two over the issue of commercialism, RMS pretty much disowned this collaboration, referring to it as “Gosling Emacs”. My impression is that "Gosling Emacs" is misunderstood as "Gosling wrote all of it", even though it just meant "the dirty commercial version of Gosling and RMS Emacs".

kragen 7y ago
This version is flatly contradicted both by the Gosling interview linked and the Stallman speech linked above; Stallman says his friend (Fen Labalme) had contributed to Gosling's version, but not that he (Stallman) had, when Stallman decided to base GNU Emacs on Gosling's implementation. I suspect that the XEmacs docs just got confused about the history, and Stallman didn't want to hear anything about XEmacs/Lucid Emacs, much less read over their documentation to correct minor historical errors.

bane 7y ago

So maybe we should call it Gosling/Emacs?

foobar_ 7y ago

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.

jefft255 7y ago
Java is a decent enough programming language and, even if that wasn't true, this guy is not responsible for the "cubicle hells" you talk about. I don't know what kind of reasoning you applied here.
- mikeeusa5 7y ago
  > I don't know what kind of reasoning you applied here. He's a but-for cause thereof, white wage-slave retard. The preceding post is using tort-law causation logic obviously, fucking moron. >DUURRR I DONT KNOW WHAT I DONT KNOW BUT I KNOW EVERYTHING!!!! -t. white fuck.
dang 7y ago
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this to HN again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- foobar_ 7y ago
  Who am I attacking here?

rb808 7y ago

Wow 3hr video only has 1000 views. Looks great. (bookmarked for later) :)

Hitton 7y ago

This sounds quite damning and makes me reconsider Stallman's character. Nevertheless it's an account of only one party, which has to be also considered. Dunno why people who were against RMS didn't try to argument with this instead innocuous Epstein comments.

squarefoot 7y ago
Because the Epstein comments, although just comments, were made on a subject a lot more sensitive to the eyes of general public; in this time and place once you're hit on that subject you're labeled for life. If the purpose was to discredit RMS in order to get rid of him and affect negatively all Free Software principles, that was the way to go. Had someone used the Emacs argument, he could have replied either with details in his defense (if he had any) or alternatively tell about the number of GPL violations a lot of companies commit when they literally steal software written by volunteers for their profit without giving nothing in return, violations he and others at GNU/FSF contributed for decades to fight against, making the whole accusation of stealing Emacs code, even if proved true, next to ridicule in comparison. I'm not saying he is being attacked on purpose by people with a hidden agenda, however the timing and the number of simultaneous attacks by multiple directions doesn't sound normal.

1000units 7y ago

Look how far people are reaching to tarnish Stallman's reputation. This is laughable.

nl 7y ago

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.

squarefoot 7y ago
Upvoted, not because I may agree or not with your post (I lack the necessary knowledge to comment on it) but because it encourages further discussion and merely downvoting it without giving any sound reason is plain stupid. May I ask to those who know more to share their knowledge instead of acting as trigger happy cowboys? Thanks.
pjmlp 7y ago
Stallman started the open source movement due to a Xerox printer driver! https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201d-redux-a-testimonial-about-the-injustice-of-proprietary-firmware https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...
- nl 7y ago
  Yes that's true too! But the context of that story needs to be understood: in the Lisp dominated world of 1980's MIT, redistributing EMACS was a big deal.

jasoneckert 7y ago

"You can't sue a homeless person" LOL!!!

bbanyc 7y ago

The first public release of GNU Emacs was 13.1 in March 1985. In July 1985, 16.56 was released with (RMS claims) all of Gosling's code replaced with new implementations. So we're talking about four months here. I think Gosling is claiming that some of his own code was still in there, regardless of what RMS said he rewrote. Just from casually poking the source code I can scrounge up [1], it doesn't look like there's any Gosling code in GNU 16.56 or later versions. But there's a lot of code in there so who knows. As a side note, as late as 1995 [2] Unipress was still trying to sell its Gosling derivative starting at $395 a seat. It had a nice list of features, including "Demonstrably better than vi", but I bet it didn't let you psychoanalyze Zippy. [1]: https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/emacs-history [2]: http://web.archive.org/web/19961125071933/http://www.unipress.com/cat/emacs.html http://web.archive.org/web/19961125071933/http://www.unipres...

agumonkey 7y ago

Funny how the recent minsky affair made me biased. I watched this video thinking 'knew it, stallman was evil all along' whenever it just examplifies how history is denser than it seems.

mikeeusa 7y ago

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?

mikeeusa 7y ago

mikeeusa3 7y ago

>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_law/copyright_statute_limitations.htm 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. _

mikeeusa3 7y ago

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?+

mikeeusa5 7y ago

>strenholme wrote: >Anything a GPL library touches in a bundled executable taints the entire code, forcing it all to be open source. How is it that I can tell that you are a layman idiot, and also a white? Ask yourself: is my code that links to a GPL library a non-separable work. And is my code that links to a GPL library derived from that library? No and No. Sure: you may be sued. But the copyright holder of the GPL'd library will not likely win. These are simple concepts. Are you white programmers dumb idiots? Note: Copyright holders of GPL'd software don't even sue blatant violators such as GRSecurity and Brad Spengler ( https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-contributory-infringement-risk-for-customers/ https://perens.com/2017/06/28/warning-grsecurity-potential-c... ) who create violating non-separable directly derivative works, adding no-redistribution-or-else additional restrictions to the work in blatant violation of section 6 of the license (GPLv2). strenholme: this is the second point of law you've been corrected on. Since you're not a laywer, maybe you should stop commenting on the law? Because you are a stupid idiot?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]