info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (07/04/84)
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 01:15:46 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <uw-beaver!vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: Re: hangman goes to jail To: croft@safe Cc: info-mac@sumex In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 2 Jul 84 11:46:45 pdt As I pointed out originally, the complexity of source exchanges between some parties (including Berkeley and AT&T) has made it increasingly difficult to accurately determine where code originated. I have at least one version of hangman from a very old Unix release that appears to share common code with the MAC version (the former was pre-graphics, of course). This is similar to the problems with "vi," where chunks of "ed" were (and still are, aren't they?) included in the Berkeley code. But let's face it, the world hardly lives or dies based on the ownership of a relatively simple game program. In my original message about hangman, I stated that if there was convincing evidence that the code in question (the particular implementation of hangman) were non-ATT, then the port is clearly OK. The dictionary presents a different problem. I don't believe that simply deleting words from a work changes the original ownership of the work! There is a court case pending now, I believe, regarding a version of a spelling list that was modified from some public domain spelling program, that turned out to have been based on a commercial dictionary list from Random House or some such. It is unclear what will happen in this case, since countersuits are apparently appearing hot and heavy. The interesting thing is that the problem was brought on by the public domain distribution of a modified word list that was originally part of a copyrighted work. One can only hope that something will be left by the time the lawyers are finished. My biggest gripe is not with either commercial software nor public domain software. It is with the "cavalier" attitude with which some people seem to feel that when it comes to software, agreements don't mean anything from a moral or ethical standpoint. Of course, this doesn't apply just to software--this attitude pervades our society in many ways and is a way of life for many. I apologize for the editorializing. By the way, thanks much for the info about disk drives and such. It looks like it's now becoming possible to put enough extra equipment on the MAC to make it truly useful. I still can't help but wish that it had been somewhat more "richly" configured from the start, but that's certainly water under the ol' bridge. --Lauren--
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (07/04/84)
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 84 11:46:45 pdt From: Bill Croft <uw-beaver!croft@safe> To: info-mac@sumex Subject: hangman goes to jail A couple of points about the posting of "hangman". Hangman was written by Ken Arnold of Berkeley (not ATT). Dan Winkler at Harvard converted it for the Mac. In the converted program, Dan placed Ken's name at the bottom of the screen, in blazing lights, for all to see. Given the simple nature of the program, I didnt figure posting it would offend anyone. I certainly would not have posted any substantial program without checking into licensing issues. Regarding the dictionary, it was severely hacked (many words deleted) before posting, so that it is ONLY good for playing hangman.