mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) (10/13/88)
> There has been one unsubstantiated report posted to Usenet that the > second legal action has been decided and PKWare is now out of > business. > ... > If this project is no longer alive, we need to move on to other > possibilities. I have had several email messages from people offering > to build a new public domain archiver. > > --Keith Petersen The aforementioned "unsubstantiated report" is just that -- without substance. I spoke to Phil shortly after reading that posting (a couple of days ago), and he expressed a great deal of surprise, as there has NOT been any judgement in regard to the contempt charges by SEA (i.e., the second legal action). Phil said that sometimes the judge will decide within a few days, sometimes within a few months. Phil feels that they have a very solid position that the charges will be dismissed, but we need to wait and see. In regard to your second point (i.e., other possibilities), please don't abandon us yet! I know Phil hasn't been the most diligent person in answering his messages (he is quite busy in other matters; it's taken ME more than one try to get ahold of him, and he's just a local phone call away...). There have been a number of messages in regard to Phil's support (or alleged lack of) for the UN*X environment re: his new R-kiver, but I had a chance to talk to him about this, and the issue of release of source code, etc. Due to a couple of other recent events, regarding the illegal hacking and re-distributing of his original PKXARC software *before* the SEA legal actions, as well as the SEA suits themselves, Phil is **very** hesitant (make that adverse) to releasing his source code for the new R-kiver. He has stated that he would release detailed specifications of the file format, including header descriptions, file structure, compression algorithms, etc., as well as all machine-specific header packets, such as VMS file and record attributes, etc. He also said that he would release working code fragments and/or functions (most likely in C) that would perform the rudimentary functions of manipulating an R-kive, such as reading/decoding the header(s), (de)compressing of files, etc., and possibly a portable but non-optimized version of the program itself, which could be used as a starting point for porting of the program to other environments. This last point is a real problem in his mind, though, since SEA did precisely the same thing, and later sued Phil for "using" that code! Phil doesn't want to do that, since it makes him no better than the people who are taking legal action against him now, although one would hope and trust that PKWARE would never stoop to such efforts towards other enterprising developers. Phil's (rather OUR) file format is being designed with growth, versatility, expanded functionality, and other environments in mind, and we all want it to be accepted as much as is possible. BTW, after starting this reply, I realize that much of what I've said could (or should) be made into a public posting; if you agree, please feel free to post this Email, with or without appropriate edits or additions (just identify whatever changes you've made!) Keep in touch! [Note from Keith: no changes were made]
jbrown@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jordan Brown) (10/16/88)
In article <KPETERSEN.12438394335.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) writes: >...and possibly a portable but non-optimized version of the >program itself, which could be used as a starting point for porting of >the program to other environments. This last point is a real problem >in his mind, though, since SEA did precisely the same thing, and later >sued Phil for "using" that code! Possession of source code does not mean that you have the rights to resell software based on that source code. The copyright still applies. (I haven't decided which side I'm on in the PK-wars, but this is a common misconception. Too many people think that if you distribute source code you are giving an unlimited redistribution license, and it just ain't so. This is a real pain for those of us who would like more products available in source form.)
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (10/17/88)
In article <KPETERSEN.12438394335.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) writes: > [cheery assurances deleted] > ... There have been a number of messages in >regard to Phil's support (or alleged lack of) for the UN*X environment >re: his new R-kiver, but I had a chance to talk to him about this ... ^^^^^^^ > ... Phil is **very** hesitant (make that >adverse) to releasing his source code for the new R-kiver ... ^^^^^^^ Oh deary deary me. ;-) D'ya suppose it was something about the carpeting or the benches in that courtroom? A special ambience to the diner around the corner? Is PK under some strange *compulsion* to stay in litigation for the rest of the decade, or is Elvis at work somewhere behind the scenes? Inquiring minds want to know! Well at any rate we have SOME concrete results from the Grand Project -- a cute new name guaranteed to get them back into hot water. It doesn't matter if Joe X used the word first in 1961, that ain't the way settlements work. I would have thought that the prudent course at this point would be to pick a name about as close to ARC as "onion." -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) (10/18/88)
In article <362@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: > >Possession of source code does not mean that you have the rights to >resell software based on that source code. The copyright still applies. > >(I haven't decided which side I'm on in the PK-wars, but this is a common >misconception. Too many people think that if you distribute source code >you are giving an unlimited redistribution license, and it just ain't so. >This is a real pain for those of us who would like more products available >in source form.) I agree with you technically; however, Phil's intent on supplying the aforementioned source code fragments (note that it wouldn't be a complete program, but just the structures, key subroutines and the like) would be expressly for use in creating programs on other systems by independent 3rd parties, and he would in all likelyhood either (a) *NOT* copyright the fragments that he distributed, or (b) place them in the public domain, or (c) include a disclaimer or some such legal verbage giving the appropriate permissions, etc., or (d) some combination of the above. I'm not Phil's official mouthpiece on this item, but he has asked me to respond to questions of this nature (sort of) to the best of my ability, and to provide direct feedback to him, as he doesn't make it onto UseNet very often. BTW, it's probably already been said here before, but anyone desiring to leave Phil direct feedback can either leave a message here, or can EMAIL to me (see my address at the end of the message), or can call Phil's BBS at 414-352-7176 (yes, it's PC-Pursuitable through WIMIL), 2400-N-8-1 (the board's been pretty busy lately, though...). If you leave a message or EMAIL here, I'll forward it to Phil electronically, and eventually (given all the turnarounds) re-post here or return EMAIL. -- - Mike Shawaluk (...!uunet!uwmcsd1!lakesys!mikes)
jbrown@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jordan Brown) (10/20/88)
In article <1121@lakesys.UUCP> mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) writes: >In article <362@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: >>Possession of source code does not mean that you have the rights to >>resell software based on that source code. The copyright still applies. >I agree with you technically; however, Phil's intent on supplying the >aforementioned source code fragments (note that it wouldn't be a complete >program, but just the structures, key subroutines and the like) would be >expressly for use in creating programs on other systems by independent 3rd >parties... I was responding to a comment that said that PK did not want to release the source to his program (the complete thing) because then he would be like SEA, beating up on people for "using" the supplied code. I was attempting to say that it is perfectly possible to release source code while retaining all rights to the code. If somebody "uses" this code by selling derivative works, then they are violating your copyright and you have every right to sue them. (I do not know, nor will I guess, about whether or not this was true in the SEA-PK case.) The source code is provided to allow users to modify and port the program; doing so does not relieve them of their legal obligations to the author. What constitutes a copyright violation in this case is hard to say. Clearly copying the majority of the code is, and duplicating single non-unusual lines is not. This is a matter for copyright lawyers; I suspect that it's fully understood in the ordinary printed-matter copyright world.
mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) (10/29/88)
In article <6978@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >In article <KPETERSEN.12438394335.BABYL@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL> mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) writes: >>adverse) to releasing his source code for the new R-kiver ... > ^^^^^^^ >... >Well at any rate we have SOME concrete results from the Grand Project >-- a cute new name guaranteed to get them back into hot water. It >doesn't matter if Joe X used the word first in 1961, that ain't the way >settlements work. I would have thought that the prudent course at this >point would be to pick a name about as close to ARC as "onion." >-- >Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff I should clear up the potential misconception at this point concerning the use of the "word" R-kiver in my previous posting. This is ***NOT*** the name (or even a close approximation) of the new product that is being worked on; it is merely the result of an overactive sense of humor on my part (actually, I borrowed that spelling from a message I got from Phil on Exec-PC). So, it was just a joke, okay? Really, we **are** trying to devote our time to preparing a quality set of programs, not trying to come up with cute names. If you must know, a tentative name has been picked (at least it is used by the project members to refer to the future product), but I'd rather not post that until trademark searches have been completed. -- - Mike Shawaluk (...!uunet!uwmcsd1!lakesys!mikes)
mdf@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark D. Freeman) (11/03/88)
In <379@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> jbrown@jato.UUCP (Jordan Brown) writes: >In article <1121@lakesys.UUCP> mikes@lakesys.UUCP (Mike Shawaluk) writes: >I was responding to a comment that said that PK did not want to release >the source to his program (the complete thing) because then he would be >like SEA, beating up on people for "using" the supplied code. I was >attempting to say that it is perfectly possible to release source code >while retaining all rights to the code. If somebody "uses" this code >by selling derivative works, then they are violating your copyright... >The source >code is provided to allow users to modify and port the program; doing >so does not relieve them of their legal obligations to the author. Personally, I think portable, non-optimized C sources should be released for distribution with the restriction that no software built or derived from those sources could be sold. Anyone who takes those sources and ports them to a new environment could always see if PK will license the new ported version and sell it, giving the porting programmer a royalty on that version's sales. Unless PK is about to release a commercial version for a given environment, it would be in their best interest to license a version for that environment from some third party so everyone could make a little more money, and pass files between more differing systems. -- Mark D. Freeman (614) 262-1418 Applications Programmer, CompuServe mdf@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu [70003,4277] ...!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mdf Columbus, OH Guest account at The Ohio State University