3 ms·

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, Goslin

• strenholme 7y ago
  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_law/copyright_statute_limitations.htm https://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/copyright_l...
  • mikeeusa 7y ago
    >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.