pertec@ucb-vax.arpa (05/10/83)
The point that I was trying to get across in my earlier message was that I felt that Workman's interests were not so much to help the general public with the distribution of public domain software, but to put more money into his pockets off the work done by others. Is this kind of piracy any better than stealing copies of CP/M, even though it's done with permission from the author? I feel that any distribution should be done through non-profit organizations. My other complaint was that this *was* a profit-making organization, and advertisements as such shouldn't be announced via INFO-CPM. Pournelle may get away with this with BYTE, but I really don't want to see it here. -roger
rconn@brl.arpa (05/11/83)
From: Rick Conn <rconn@brl.arpa>
First of all, I believe that you have a right to your opinions as
I have a right to mine. I'm not trying to change your opinion
(well, maybe I am), and I am writing this simply to express my
feelings on the subject.
I don't classify what Workman is doing as piracy. Piracy implies
that legal harm is being done, such as stealing from someone.
Stealing copies of CP/M is piracy since harm is being done to DR
(in the form of a loss of income that would be there if the pro-
duct was sold instead). Selling PD software isn't causing any
harm that I can see. I don't feel a loss of money because Work-
man is selling ZCPR2.
This does NOT mean, however, that I approve of selling PD
software. I don't feel that it is morally right to take advan-
tage of the generosity of others in this manner. In the case of
ZCPR2, Workman asked me for permission and offered a percentage.
I granted the permission (rationale: to provide a source for
those who were not successful or did not desire to tap into the
PD) but declined the percentage (rationale: maintaining my phi-
losophy of giving it away in the first place). I don't believe
that Workman asked the other PD authors for permission (I know he
didn't for my old HELP system), and I believe this is morally
wrong, but I also believe he has the right to do this by the sim-
ple fact that it IS in the public domain.
As for advertising on this net, I agree completely that this is
wrong. I don't believe, tho, that what Jerry did was advertising
(unless Jerry is getting a percentage of the sales, which I don't
think he is). If Workman came on and sent a message saying "I'm
selling so-and-so for $$$", then THAT would be advertising. As-
suming that Workman did not ask Jerry to make the announcement
and that Jerry was passing it on only for information purposes,
then Jerry used the net to pass on information of interest to
others, which is a big part of what the net is for. My saying
that Rolm's Ada Language System is to be validated by the end of
May or that the 68010 is on the market for $20 and here's what it
does is passing information, which is fine, and I don't call this
advertising since advertising has, as I feel, an implication of
profit to the person who passes the information in this case.
Note that, by the dictionary, simply making a public notice is
advertising, so if advertising is to be banned from the ARPA Net,
we may as well shut down the electronic mailing lists now.
RickPOURNE%mit-mc@sri-unix.UUCP (05/11/83)
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE@mit-mc> for glory's sake. about nine peop[le asked me how to get hard copy of the zcpr documents, and pleaded for somebody to provide them. I am bloody sorry I mentioned it to Barry. He makes about what this stuff costs, when you count overhead, warehouseing, having to go get the crap, and th rest. I bloody quit. Next time you ask for hard copy, and want things provided, and ask for how to get stuff, please bother someone else. I obviously am in a no win situation here, and I decline to be in the game any longer. Ride your moral hobby horses forever. Some of us have better things to do than listen..
POURNE%mit-mc@sri-unix.UUCP (05/11/83)
From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE@mit-mc> roger dear, I know you are purer than the driven snow, and we thank you for being the conscience and guardian of us all. Odd, isn't it, that one can be a cad for charging PRECISELY what the User's Group charges? Whilst they are benefactors. And certainly have their addresses published, indeed one performs a public service by so publishing. very odd. we do thank you for the lessons..
jlg (05/12/83)
If I were to decide to sell some of my software, I would probably make
it public domain. The reason for this is that software piracy will
occur (for good codes anyway) whether I copyright or not. But by making
my software public domain I am directly authorizing any 'piracy' that
anyone wants to do. Of course, if you don't buy from me, you won't
get bugfixes, updates, or extensions when they are available.
This method of software marketing will only work if I price my code
reasonably. No $600.00 compiler I have ever seen is worth the money,
so people pirate copies instead. I have written my own language processors
for my stuff (if I need something that didn't come with the hardware) and
I get along pretty good without the overpriced codes that are on the market.
Still, it would save a lot of time if I could buy this stuff at a reasonable
price.
J.L. Giles
(...!lanl-a!jlg)