3 ms·

James Gosling on how Richard Stallman stole his Emacs source code

13 points by ZeljkoS 7y ago

kragen 7y ago
Fake news. cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21251896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21251896
- naikrovek 7y ago
  Well, Gosling's version of the story is backed up by the court cases he mentions and the business people he worked with. Stallman's version of the story is backed up by... Stallman.
  - kragen 7y ago
    I haven't seen the court case; can you post a link? I don't know the business people he worked with; do you know them? I do know Fen Labalme, and other people back up Stallman's version of the "story" — including, notably, Dan Weinreb, who Stallman hates with a passion, and Guy Steele. The published record also backs up "Stallman's story". There isn't a plausible possibility that Emacs is by Gosling rather than Stallman.
    - kragen 7y ago
      To elaborate, it's very unlikely that the Unipress guys would in fact back up Gosling's version, because it's false, and they're basically honest people. I've searched for evidence of the Unipress lawsuits against DEC and IBM; there is no evidence that they ever existed. I'm very interested in seeing this evidence if it does exist. If you haven't seen such evidence and you don't know these people, then why would you post such baseless accusations?
      - msla 7y ago
        So Gosling's story is about as real as the Familia Toledo?
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.
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?

13 points by ZeljkoS 7y ago

kragen 7y ago

Fake news. cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21251896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21251896

naikrovek 7y ago
Well, Gosling's version of the story is backed up by the court cases he mentions and the business people he worked with. Stallman's version of the story is backed up by... Stallman.
- kragen 7y ago
  I haven't seen the court case; can you post a link? I don't know the business people he worked with; do you know them? I do know Fen Labalme, and other people back up Stallman's version of the "story" — including, notably, Dan Weinreb, who Stallman hates with a passion, and Guy Steele. The published record also backs up "Stallman's story". There isn't a plausible possibility that Emacs is by Gosling rather than Stallman.
  - kragen 7y ago
    To elaborate, it's very unlikely that the Unipress guys would in fact back up Gosling's version, because it's false, and they're basically honest people. I've searched for evidence of the Unipress lawsuits against DEC and IBM; there is no evidence that they ever existed. I'm very interested in seeing this evidence if it does exist. If you haven't seen such evidence and you don't know these people, then why would you post such baseless accusations?
    - msla 7y ago
      So Gosling's story is about as real as the Familia Toledo?

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.

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?