607 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
607 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
_______________________________________________________
|
|
| |
|
|
| PROGRAMMING FREEDOM - online edition |
|
|
| |
|
|
| August 1992 -==- Volume I Number 5 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| The Electronic Newsletter of |
|
|
| The League for Programming Freedom |
|
|
| 1 Kendall Sq #143, POBox #9171, Cambridge MA 02139 |
|
|
| league@prep.ai.mit.edu |
|
|
| Editor: Spike R. MacPhee (spiker@prep.ai.mit.edu) |
|
|
|Assistant Editor: Andy Oram (oram@hicomb.hi.com) |
|
|
| Reproduction of Programming Freedom via all |
|
|
| electronic media is encouraged. |
|
|
| To reproduce a signed article individually, |
|
|
| please contact the author for permission. |
|
|
|_____________________________________________________|
|
|
|
|
<><><><><> TABLE OF CONTENTS <><><><><>
|
|
Heckel - Gabriel debate report by Richard P. Gabriel
|
|
News: IBM and Microsoft cross-license
|
|
Apple and Quorum patents - by Richard M. Stallman (rms)
|
|
Status of the LPF Apple boycott - Chris Hofstader
|
|
LPF position on latest in Apple vs. Microsoft/HP case - rms
|
|
LPF publicity: Cons, media mentions, & volunteer efforts
|
|
LPF's position on ATT/BSDI suit - by LPF Pres. Jack Larsen & rms
|
|
LPF News: voicemail still down, due back soon
|
|
LPF bibliography and on-line index continues - by Michael Ernst
|
|
Another way to publicize the LPF - by Frank P. Bresz
|
|
LPF email lists - who and what they are for
|
|
Viewpoint: Software Patents - Boom or Bane? - by rms
|
|
LPF Boutique: Materials Available from the League
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><><>Heckel - Gabriel debate<><><>
|
|
- by rpg%inferno@lucid.com (Richard P. Gabriel)
|
|
|
|
The publicity flyer for my debate with Heckel read:
|
|
|
|
"Special Interest Group on Freedom, Privacy and Technology: A public
|
|
forum co-sponsored by BMUG and CPSR/Berkeley, May 31.
|
|
|
|
Software patent proponent Paul Heckel goes head to head with Dr.
|
|
Richard P. Gabriel, of the League for Programming Freedom to discuss
|
|
the realities of software patents...
|
|
|
|
Paul Heckel, author of the book "The Elements of Friendly Software
|
|
Design" (Sybex books, second edition, 1991) and owner of HyperRacks,
|
|
Inc., pioneered the card and stack computer metaphor. He developed
|
|
Zoomracks, which is recognized as a predecessor to HyperCard by Apple
|
|
Computer (among others), who licensed his patents.
|
|
|
|
Dr. Richard P. Gabriel is Chief Technical Officer and principal
|
|
founder of Lucid, Inc, a Unix software company specializing in object
|
|
technology. He is a regular columnist for AI Expert. His research
|
|
accomplishments include the first high-performance supercomputer Lisp
|
|
system, the definition of the Common Lisp language, the Gabriel
|
|
Benchmarks for measuring Lisp system performance, the design and
|
|
implementation of Qlisp (the first compiler-based parallel Lisp
|
|
implementation), assisted with the definition of the Common Lisp
|
|
Object System (CLOS), and the architecture of Lucid's integrated
|
|
programming environment."
|
|
|
|
I felt that he self-destructed again, and basically the whole crowd
|
|
(only 20 people) ended up attacking him. He had two questions he
|
|
couldn't respond to, neither of which I had heard before (I'll present
|
|
the second as a statement, but it was in the form of a question at the
|
|
debate):
|
|
|
|
1. what program, system, or technique did we get that we wouldn't
|
|
have got without patents?
|
|
|
|
2. In other areas, the cost of patents is in the cost of parts.
|
|
So, when I build a computer, I buy a chip and the cost of the
|
|
licensed patent is included. If I use a lot of chips, then the
|
|
patent's value is accurately reflected by the cost to me,
|
|
and if the computer sells well, the added revenue (cost)
|
|
accurately reflects the value of the patent.
|
|
This can't happen with software, because if I use a patented
|
|
technique for a small purpose and the patent-holder charges a
|
|
percentage royalty, I get screwed because the cost of the
|
|
patent to me is inaccurate with regard to its cost. And if the
|
|
patent-holder charges a fixed price and I sell a lot of
|
|
product with the patent, the value of the patent to the
|
|
product with regard to its cost is inaccurate. This is a direct
|
|
result of software patents being about ideas and not about
|
|
property.
|
|
|
|
I would say the result of the debate is that Heckel's wild arguments
|
|
convinced the audience that the entire patent system should be
|
|
ditched.
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><><>News: IBM and Microsoft cross-license<><><>
|
|
|
|
IBM and Microsoft have completed negotiations on royalties for OS/2;
|
|
IBM will pay Microsoft some amount under $30/copy. But during the
|
|
negotiations, IBM threatened to hit Microsoft with patent suits on a
|
|
thousand software patents. They ended up cross-licensing all their
|
|
patents, but because IBM had more patents, Microsoft paid between $20M
|
|
and $30M as part of the deal.
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><><>Apple and Quorum patents - by Richard M. Stallman (rms)<><><>
|
|
|
|
The Macintosh system uses a simple compressed representation for
|
|
regions (two-dimensional shapes). Fundamentally, a region is
|
|
represented by a bitmap; the compression technique consists of
|
|
run-length encoding first in the x-direction and then in the
|
|
y-direction. It is possible to do boolean operations on compressed
|
|
regions operating directly on the compressed form; this is faster than
|
|
generating the full bitmap.
|
|
|
|
This representation is patented by Apple; the patent number is
|
|
4,622,545.
|
|
|
|
The result is to cause a problem for any Macintosh-compatible system.
|
|
Applications contain actual regions represented in this format, and
|
|
any method of executing the application correctly must infringe the
|
|
patent.
|
|
|
|
So what have emulator-writers done? One company, Quorum, decided to
|
|
handle stored regions in applications only approximately; they expand
|
|
the region to a rectangle, ignoring its detailed shape. This seems to
|
|
work well enough in practice--apparently most applications make little
|
|
use of saved constant regions.
|
|
|
|
But this approximation method brings a vulnerability: Apple can
|
|
develop applications that explicitly refuse to work if the system
|
|
handles regions approximately. If important applications don't work
|
|
at all, the emulator will be useless. Apple could even pressure other
|
|
developers into doing this. Apple is known for placing obnoxious
|
|
restrictions on its approved developers, and this particular
|
|
imposition would not be out of character.
|
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Quorum uses another representation for regions, and another
|
|
method for doing boolean operations. And Quorum is patenting this
|
|
technique. Yesterday's underdog has become tomorrow's bully.
|
|
|
|
Because Quorum is a small company, it may respond to public
|
|
disapproval. Two years ago a few LPF members convinced Solbourne to
|
|
back down on an interface copyright claim. We may be able to convince
|
|
Quorum to back down if we give them a response that is surprisingly
|
|
strong.
|
|
|
|
So please write letters to the president of Quorum, deploring this
|
|
patent and saying that if they sink to Apple's level then you will say
|
|
the same bad things about them that you do about Apple.
|
|
|
|
Sheldon Breiner, President
|
|
Quorum Software Systems, Inc.
|
|
4700 Bohannon Drive, Suite 125
|
|
Menlo Park, CA 94025
|
|
|
|
Urge Quorum to give the patent to the public, or to adopt a
|
|
non-aggression policy for it. (A non-aggression policy means they
|
|
won't use the patent against you unless you use patents against them.)
|
|
|
|
Send a copy of your letter to a magazine that Quorum might advertise
|
|
in, and mark this fact on the letter.
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><>Status of the LPF Apple boycott - by Christian D. Hofstader<><>
|
|
|
|
One of our members asked: Now that Apple is no longer pursuing a
|
|
look-and-feel lawsuit, is the boycott over?
|
|
- David J. Camp (campfire!david@wupost.wustl.edu)
|
|
|
|
I am not certain that Apple is no longer pursuing lnf suits. All that
|
|
I've heard is that a judge has thrown most of their case out. We will
|
|
drop our boycott when and if Apple announces publicly that they will
|
|
no longer use such tactics in the future. If this has already
|
|
happened I have not heard about it.
|
|
|
|
- cdh@prep.ai.mit.edu, LPF Secretary and Director
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><>LPF position on latest in Apple vs. Microsoft/HP case - rms<><>
|
|
|
|
Recently, Judge Walker threw out most of Apple's complaints against
|
|
Microsoft and HP. He cited concerns about overbroad monopoly as part
|
|
of the reason.
|
|
|
|
This is definitely a step in the right direction, and a win for
|
|
programmers' freedom, but it does not completely eliminate the danger
|
|
from Apple--for several reasons:
|
|
|
|
* Not all of the lawsuit has been thrown out. A few of Apple's claims
|
|
still remain to be decided.
|
|
|
|
* Part of the reason most claims were rejected was that Microsoft had
|
|
signed a contract with Apple, years ago. In fact, the judge did not
|
|
decide for certain that the features in Apple's list were
|
|
uncopyrightable; he said that *either* they are uncopyrightable *or*
|
|
Microsoft's license covers them. Only another trial will tell us
|
|
which one it is!
|
|
|
|
Thus, if Apple were to sue someone else in the exact same way--someone
|
|
who did not sign such a license with them years ago--it is not clear
|
|
that the outcome would be the same.
|
|
|
|
* Apple may appeal the decision; we cannot regard any of it as final.
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><>LPF publicity: Cons, media mentions, & volunteer efforts<><>
|
|
|
|
Send in any LPF mentions or volunteer efforts and we'll list it.
|
|
|
|
May 31 Berkeley Richard P. Garbriel debates Paul Heckel
|
|
Report by Gabriel in this issue.
|
|
June 1 Computerworld Viewpoint column by rms (reprinted here).
|
|
|
|
karl@cs.umb.edu (Karl Berry) reports:
|
|
|
|
"Here's a small (tiny) thing I did. I got a typical questionnaire
|
|
from Dartmouth, my alma mater, asking their alumni about directions
|
|
for the future. I suggested they support the LPF's boycott of Apple,
|
|
and join the LPF as an institutional member. (Since Dartmouth
|
|
essentially requires each student buy a PC or Mac, and many buy Macs,
|
|
their supporting the boycott might actually make Apple pay attention.)
|
|
I also sent them the LPF position papers."
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<>LPF's position on ATT/BSDI suit - by LPF Pres Jack Larsen & rms<>
|
|
|
|
People have asked why the LPF hasn't said anything about the lawsuit
|
|
by USL (a subsidiary of AT&T) against the University of California at
|
|
Berkeley and against BSDI.
|
|
|
|
The reason is because we don't yet know whether this lawsuit falls
|
|
within the scope of concern of the LPF. This is because the USL
|
|
allegations are vague. The crucial claim is that
|
|
|
|
27. This statement is likewise materially false and misleading
|
|
in that, to the extent the BSDI "LICENSED PROGRAM" is (as BSDI
|
|
claims) based upon Berkeley's Networking Release 2, it is in fact
|
|
based upon, copied from or derived from AT&T's code, such that
|
|
users of the BSDI program require a license from AT&T or its
|
|
successor, USL.
|
|
|
|
and it is not clear what sort of illegality is charged.
|
|
|
|
This could be an allegation that actual code was copied, in which case
|
|
the issue is not one of concern to the LPF. The LPF stands for the
|
|
freedom to write software, but it is not opposed to owning individual
|
|
programs that one has written, and this includes USL.
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, perhaps an interface copyright claim is lurking
|
|
within "otherwise derived". Or USL could interpret it this way if
|
|
other interpretations prove unfavorable. This would bring the case
|
|
directly within the LPF's area of concern.
|
|
|
|
However, the case may fall into the area of programming freedom in a
|
|
wider sense, as an example of using the power of money to harass. For
|
|
several reasons, the actions of USL would be an abuse even if the
|
|
allegation were true:
|
|
|
|
NET2 is a collection of many different programs and parts of
|
|
programs written by different people and institutions. While
|
|
they work together, they are unrelated as regards authorship. To
|
|
charge that NET2 as a single entity infringes some (unspecified)
|
|
right is like pointing at a bookstore and saying that its entire
|
|
contents are illegal because of unidentified books.
|
|
|
|
USL has not even specified what sort of illegality they allege;
|
|
they want BSDI to be judged as vaguely in the wrong, disregarding
|
|
what sort of copying and distribution the law permits.
|
|
|
|
USL originally sued BSDI, alleging misconduct by UCB, not by
|
|
BSDI. At the time, UCB had received no word of complaint from
|
|
USL about the releases of free software, which had begun in 1988.
|
|
The release of NET2 took place about a year before the lawsuit
|
|
against BSDI.
|
|
|
|
UCB made assiduous efforts to avoid including any AT&T code in
|
|
the NET2 release, and this included several attempts over a
|
|
period of years to ask USL whether they regarded certain programs
|
|
as in any way violating their copyrights or trade secrets. USL
|
|
refused to answer.
|
|
|
|
USL has sued the lawyers of BSDI and UCB, merely for raising
|
|
objections to the questions that USL wanted Mike Karels to
|
|
answer.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps these issues should be a matter of concern to the LPF, even
|
|
though the legality of copying code is not one. However, the problems
|
|
of our legal system exposed here have nothing specifically to do with
|
|
software; the ability of the wealthy to deny others their legal rights
|
|
is a general phenomenon.
|
|
|
|
Also, the main focus of the LPF is on changing the legal system for
|
|
software, not on individual cases, and it is not clear what change in
|
|
the system we should advocate to solve these problems. This case does
|
|
not suggest a need for changes in copyright or trade secret law for
|
|
software because the defendants will probably win under existing
|
|
law--provided they can manage to last until the case is decided.
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><><>LPF News: voicemail still down, due back soon<><><>
|
|
|
|
Our voicemail number is temporarily down. The voicemail subcontractor
|
|
to our snailmail mailbox company abruptly went bankrupt; we are
|
|
attempting to recover the number from them and provide more reliable
|
|
service to you without obsoleting our stocks of LPF materials with the
|
|
voicemail number on them.
|
|
|
|
Chris Hofstader adds: "...I finally heard from ... Dictronics ... who
|
|
purchased MessageNet. Previously MessageNet purchased VoiceTek. I,
|
|
with the cooperative and patient assistance of Bill at Mail Boxes
|
|
Etc., have spent much of the summer chasing corporate ownership of our
|
|
phone number. We finally found a person with the authority to release
|
|
the number to us.
|
|
|
|
NETel is setting up a system for us that will at first forward our
|
|
calls to a different rented number. We will in the coming weeks
|
|
purchase an answering system and put it in a stable home with a very
|
|
inexpensive "incoming" only line attached.
|
|
|
|
This problem is finally solved... Bankruptcy and
|
|
corporate takeovers are a complete hassle to trace through."
|
|
|
|
The number was and will be 617-243-4091. It is a voice-mail phone, so
|
|
please leave your name and phone number or address, and your question
|
|
or request, and our person will get back to you.
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><>LPF bibliography & on-line index continues - by Michael Ernst<><>
|
|
|
|
[Two people have since volunteered to maintain this important
|
|
resource. I included all of Mike's description to show how much work
|
|
he has done on the index for the LPF. We thank you for your efforts,
|
|
Mike.]
|
|
|
|
For the past few year and a half I have been maintaining two files for
|
|
the League for Programming Freedom: a partial list of software patents
|
|
and an online index to the League's hardcopy files. Other commitments
|
|
(and the possibility that I will soon leave the Boston area) force me
|
|
to delegate these tasks to someone else, and I am looking for
|
|
volunteers to take over responsibility for one or both of the files.
|
|
(One person doesn't necessarily have to manage both of them.)
|
|
|
|
I spend several hours every month going through new acquisitions which
|
|
are placed in a file in 545 Technology Square (the FSF headquarters),
|
|
deciding in which physical file folder to store them, and indexing
|
|
them electronically. When I come across references to, or articles
|
|
about, software patents or user interface copyrights, I place them in
|
|
the electronic index as well and hunt them down if it's convenient. I
|
|
often read or skim articles and patents so that I can provide a precis
|
|
along with information about the title, author, and date of
|
|
publication; this makes the index much more useful. When I update the
|
|
files, I send diffs of the changes to a set of interested people.
|
|
|
|
I hope that someone will be willing to take over this responsibility,
|
|
for at least two reasons. First, it is essential to keeping the
|
|
League's extensive set of hardcopy files in order; without some
|
|
organization and an index, they would be nearly useless (as they were
|
|
before I started). Second, I would hate to see my significant
|
|
investment of time go to waste if the present organization was allowed
|
|
to fall before entropy.
|
|
|
|
If you'd like to look at the files, either to use them or because you
|
|
are interested in possibly taking them over, you can find them for
|
|
anonymous ftp in the directory mintaka.lcs.mit.edu:/mitlpf/ai, files
|
|
index and patent-list.
|
|
-Michael Ernst
|
|
mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><>Another way to publicize the LPF - Frank P. Bresz<><>
|
|
|
|
WOW what a response.... using a question instead of
|
|
just a signature works far better for recruiting purposes. I have
|
|
had this signature :
|
|
|
|
Frank P. Bresz |PCD Simulators Department, Westinghouse Electric Corporation
|
|
fpb@ittc.wec.com|My opinions are mine, WEC pays big money for official opinions
|
|
uunet!ittc!fpb |Member: League for Programming Freedom (LPF) | STOP Software |
|
|
+1 412 733 6749 |For more information on the 'LPF' send mail | Patents Now |
|
|
|
|
For about a month (perhaps longer). In the past week I have
|
|
started (as suggested in the 'recruiting' document) just posing the
|
|
question to mail contacts from usenet and the like. I take the
|
|
time to remove my affiliation so as to not 'lead' the person into
|
|
anything they might not want to say/think.
|
|
|
|
I have already received 2 or 3 responses and at least 1 'Yep, looks
|
|
like I better join', after sending the papers.
|
|
|
|
Just thought I would let the folks know that it really works and it
|
|
is worth the few minutes it takes to do it.
|
|
|
|
[the signature publicity is also expanding; we now get 10 to 20
|
|
requests for info in a week stating that they "saw us in a .sig." -
|
|
spiker]
|
|
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><><>LPF email lists - who and what they are for<><><>
|
|
|
|
These lists are for LPF members only, although you may, of course,
|
|
redistribute postings to your friends in the hopes of getting them to
|
|
actively support the LPF by joining.
|
|
|
|
The moderated mailing list:
|
|
league-activists@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
|
|
and its two sub-lists:
|
|
league-activists-boston@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
and league-activists-remote@prep.ai.mit.edu should be used only
|
|
|
|
for members' requests for assistance in league projects, local or
|
|
nationally, or for announcements from LPF.
|
|
|
|
These lists are filtered by a moderator to:
|
|
- insure this use;
|
|
- minimize the number of messages;
|
|
- remove items meant for the list's -request address;
|
|
- forward items that should have been sent to another list.
|
|
|
|
There may be a delay of up to 3 days for your message to be sent on
|
|
L-act, so plan ahead for volunteer requests.
|
|
|
|
League-tactics@prep.ai.mit.edu is for discussion of LPF directions and
|
|
is not moderated.
|
|
|
|
If you want to subscribe, change your eddress (email address), or be
|
|
removed from either list, please use:
|
|
|
|
league-activists-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
or league-tactics-request@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
General questions about the LPF, and administrative questions about
|
|
your membership or your email copy of the newsletter should still go
|
|
to: league@prep.ai.mit.edu
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
Viewpoint: Software Patents - Boom or Bane? - by rms
|
|
(Appeared in June 1, 1992 Computerworld, p. 33)
|
|
|
|
If you develop software, or even if you use software, software patents
|
|
are a threat to your work.
|
|
|
|
Patents in software provide little benefit to society: past experience
|
|
shows that many new algorithms were published and many new features
|
|
tried out, in the absence of patents. The burden they impose is
|
|
immense: every design decision now carries the risk of being sued for
|
|
infringing a patent; most new techniques and features are off-limits
|
|
for seventeen years. As Bank of America has learned, even the users
|
|
of popular software packages can be sued.
|
|
|
|
When people first learn about the problem of software patents, their
|
|
attention is often drawn to the absurd patents that cover techniques
|
|
already widely known---such as ``natural order recalculation'' in
|
|
spreadsheets.
|
|
|
|
Focusing on these examples can lead some people to ignore the rest of
|
|
the problem. They are attracted to the position that the patent
|
|
system is basically correct and needs only ``reforms'' to carry out
|
|
its own rules properly. For example, they propose a data base of
|
|
prior art for patent examiners to study. But how much good would this
|
|
do? Let's consider an example.
|
|
|
|
In April 1991, software developer Ross Williams began publishing a
|
|
series of data compression programs using new algorithms of his own
|
|
devising. Their superior speed and compression quality soon attracted
|
|
users.
|
|
|
|
The following September, use of these programs in the United States
|
|
was halted by a newly issued patent, number 5,049,881. Dean Gibson
|
|
and Mark Graybill had applied for the patent on June 18, 1990.
|
|
|
|
Under the current patent rules, the validity of the patent depends on
|
|
whether there is ``prior art'': whether the basic idea was published
|
|
before that date in 1990. Williams's publication in April 1991 came
|
|
after that date, so it does not count.
|
|
|
|
Ghiora Drori, a student at the University of San Francisco, described
|
|
a similar algorithm in 1988/9 in a class paper, but it was not
|
|
published. This doesn't count either.
|
|
|
|
Reforms to make the patent system work ``properly'' would be no help
|
|
here---because the patent would still exist. There is no prior art
|
|
for it. It is not close to obvious, as the patent system interprets
|
|
the term. (Like most patents, it is neither revolutionary nor
|
|
trivial, but somewhere in between.) The fault is in the rules
|
|
themselves, not their execution.
|
|
|
|
Between this and other data compression patents, it is now difficult
|
|
to design any high-quality compression program that is unambiguously
|
|
lawful---because it is not easy to tell just how far a given patent
|
|
stretches.
|
|
|
|
In the US legal system, patents are intended as a bargain between
|
|
society and individuals; society is supposed to gain through the
|
|
disclosure of techniques that would otherwise never be available. It
|
|
is clear that society has gained nothing by issuing patent number
|
|
5,049,881.
|
|
|
|
Under current rules, our ability to use Williams's programs depends on
|
|
whether anyone happened to publish the same idea before April 1991.
|
|
More fundamentally, it depends on when various people happened to have
|
|
this idea. That is to say, it depends on luck. This system is good
|
|
for promoting the practice of law rather than that of software.
|
|
|
|
Teaching the Patent Office to look at more of the existing prior art
|
|
might prevent some outrageous mistakes. It will not cure the greater
|
|
problem, which is the patenting of every @emph{new} wrinkle in the
|
|
use of computers, like the one that Williams and others independently
|
|
developed.
|
|
|
|
This will turn software into a quagmire. Even an innovative program
|
|
will use dozens of known techniques and features, and each is likely
|
|
to be off limits if it is less than two decades old. Our ability to
|
|
use each wrinkle will depend on luck, and if we are unlucky half the
|
|
time, few programs will escape infringing a large number of patents.
|
|
Navigating the maze of patents will be harder than writing software.
|
|
As @cite{The Economist} says, software patents are simply bad for
|
|
business.
|
|
|
|
A reform substantial enough to solve this problem would have to
|
|
eliminate nearly all software patents. Since the problem is grave, we
|
|
should not wait to decide which handful do benefit society, if any.
|
|
We should abolish them all without delay, and leave the tuning for
|
|
later.
|
|
--==--
|
|
|
|
<><><> LPF Boutique: Materials Available from the League <><><>
|
|
|
|
Please send your order to the League address on the first page We
|
|
don't take credit cards yet, but are working on this with our bank.
|
|
We do take Traveler's Checks.
|
|
Buttons
|
|
We have reprinted the famous ``fanged apple'' buttons. These
|
|
buttons show the symbol of Apple computer with an alien snake's body
|
|
and face. You can buy buttons by mail from the League, for $2 each,
|
|
in quantities of at least three. We give out buttons at events, but
|
|
ask for a donation.
|
|
Stickers
|
|
We also have stickers showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer,
|
|
with the League's name and address. You can order stickers by mail
|
|
from the League at $5 for 10 stickers; for larger orders, phone us to
|
|
discuss a price. We hand them out free when it is convenient, such as
|
|
at our events, but since mailing packages to individuals costs money,
|
|
we want to make it an opportunity to raise funds.
|
|
Post stickers at eye level and separated from other posted
|
|
articles, to make them easy to see. The stickers are not made to
|
|
survive rain.
|
|
Liberty Postcards
|
|
We also have postcards showing Liberty Empowering the Programmer,
|
|
with the League's name and address. Same terms as the stickers.
|
|
Large Liberty Posters
|
|
We have a few posters with the same image that is on the
|
|
stickers, approximately 2.5 ft by 1.5 ft. They are $4 each and $4
|
|
total shipping and handling in the US for the first one to five
|
|
posters, and $2 for each additional five.
|
|
Coffee Mugs
|
|
Our coffee mugs have the Fanged Apple design in full color on one
|
|
side and ``League for Programming Freedom'' on the other. They hold
|
|
twelve ounces and are microwave safe. You can order a mug for $15,
|
|
nonmembers $17, plus $3.00 shipping and handling. They are now in
|
|
stock. Note the price increase.
|
|
T-Shirt
|
|
Michael Ernst has produced t-shirts with Liberty and ``League for
|
|
Programming Freedom'' on the front and ``Innovate, Don't Litigate'' on
|
|
the back. (The back slogan will change from time to time.) You can
|
|
order shirts by mail from the League for $10, nonmembers $12, plus $2
|
|
for shipping and handling. Available colors are yellow, blue and
|
|
peach (ecru); if you specify a color, we will assume you would rather
|
|
have another color than no shirt. If you want a chosen color or
|
|
nothing, say so explicitly. Please specify the shirt size! (M, L or
|
|
XL.) We are sold out of XL shirts, but will be making more new shirts
|
|
with the next version of the back slogan by the end of Sept.
|
|
Position Papers and Memberships
|
|
We will send anyone a copy of the League position papers. If you
|
|
want other copies to hand out at an event, we'll send you as many as
|
|
you need. Please discuss your plans with us. One-year memberships
|
|
are $42 for professionals, $10.50 for students, and $21 for others.
|
|
The dues are $100 for an institution with up to three employees, $250
|
|
for an institution with four to nine employees, and $500 for an
|
|
institution with ten or more employees. For $5000, an institution can
|
|
be a sponsor rather than a member. We have 10 inst. members, now.
|
|
League Papers Online
|
|
You can retrieve LPF written materials in TeXinfo format by anonymous
|
|
ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu in the directory /pub/lpf. These include the
|
|
position papers, membership form, handouts, friends of the court
|
|
briefs, and articles about the LPF's issues of concern. In addition to
|
|
the above, Joe Wells has PostScript, DVI, plain text, and Info format
|
|
versions of the papers "Against User Interface Copyright"
|
|
(look-and-feel) and "Against Software Patents" (patents) available for
|
|
FTP from this location: cs.bu.edu:pub/jbw/lpf/
|
|
League Video Cassettes
|
|
We have a four-hour video tape of two of Richard Stallman's speeches for the
|
|
LPF. If you'd like to give LPF speeches, we can send you copies of
|
|
these tape to give you an example to learn from. If you'd like
|
|
copies for another purpose, we can send them for $20 each. They will
|
|
be available in Oct. <><><>
|
|
|
|
<><><> End of August 1992 Programming Freedom <><><>
|
|
_______ |