GNU Emacs compiling/executable.

[Vernon Schryver]

In article <DC923761BB3F00167B at dino.squibb.com>, BRUC at DINO.SQUIBB.COM ("Bob Bruccoleri  683-6165", 609) writes:
> Dear Vernon,
> 	I honestly doubt whether the Free Software Foundation would
> object to SGI providing a repository for its binaries as long as SGI
> made its patches to the GNU sources available as well. I think that the
> FSF cares much more about the spirit of their license rather than its
> letter, and they ask people to contact them if there is any question or
> if alternative arrangements can be made. 

So who has the time to negotiate with Mr. Stallman?  I don't mean that in
any mean spirited way.  It's just that no one's time here is free.  People
with free time at night here are more inclined to work on new versions of
flight or gadgets like gdiff.

> 	I think SGI is making an error by not assisting the GNU effort more.
> ...

If SGI were over-staffed like some companies appear to be (e.g. those with
layoffs), or so much smaller so that we could not afford to maintain our
own compilers, etc., then I would agree that the GNU stuff would be a Good
Thing to ship, if a suitable copyleft arrangement could be achieved.

>    ....   I understand
> that SGI is worried about GNU software cutting into sales of its own
> products, but I think there is limited overlap between the "markets"
> for free, unsupported software and for paid, supported software. 

Nobody would tell me about such concerns, but I still doubt any exist.
The only thing that might "overlap" is emacs, and that was never really a
Silicon Graphics issue.  (Yes, I still use Unipress on my machine.)

As for finding "1 or 2" people to maintain SGI-GNU stuff--you have an odd
idea about how things are staffed out here.  There are some groups with
lots of people.  Most "groups" are different.  Your suggestion amounts to
devoting as many people to "free" GNU stuff as now develop, maintain, and
enhance other, central and much more vital parts of the system.

> 	I don't see how the liability issue for GNU software is
> any different than 4Dgifts. In fact, the flight demo is more dangerous
> than any GNU software. Its flight simulation is sufficiently incorrect
> that a person who learns to use it will have a harder time learning
> how to fly a real airplane afterwards, and will be more likely to crash.

Ha!  Nice joke.  
Seriously, people who get things from SGI have this funny idea that they
should work, no matter what they paid.  We'd get far more complaints about
GNU bugs than we not get for not having GNU stuff.

> 	Thankfully, the Iris user community and individuals at SGI are
> working to make the GNU programs work on our workstations. But it would
> be better if corporate SGI got more involved with the GNU project. 

Why would it be better?  How would that keep "corporate SGI" from getting
in trouble with "stockholder SGI."  We stockholders want those salaries
spent for things that will increase revenue and profit.  A new window
manager or FDDI seems like a better investment of my money than fixing GNU
bugs or hassling rms.

What's the difference to you if you FTP GNU binaries from BRL.MIL or
sgi.com?  Look at it this way, as long as the binaries are on BRL.MIL
(thanks, Mike), you can be sure GNU contributions from people at SGI will
be available, and that no evil commercial considerations have caused
anything to be misteriously deleted or broken.  The long standing
arrangement with BRL seems much closer to the spirit behind the FSF than
getting "corporate SGI" involved.


Vernon Schryver,   vjs at sgi.com

P.S. I delayed writing anything on this subject many months because I
    expected many people would complain.  I probably made a mistake
    in responding to the recent crescendo.