bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (10/06/88)
About public domainness -- Rahul has stated that the "zoo" file format is public domain. The "looz" MSDOS-executable is public domain; I don't believe he has released the source code. He has released source code for "booz" into public domain. "Booz" is a `basic' extractor of zoo files, enough to get stuff out of zoo archives. I know it compiles and works under TurboC and under Ultrix v2.?; I haven't personally tried it anywhere else. Only "zoo" the full-blown archive-manipulating program is subject to restrictions, which amount to limits on the charges for redistribution. How about it, programming hotshots? Write a program of your own that uses the ZOO format! It's your chance to be creative! [disclaimer: Rahul Dhesi is not bound by any mistakes I may have made in the above.] -- -- bob,mon (bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu) -- "Aristotle was not Belgian..." - Wanda
hardin@hpindda.HP.COM (John Hardin) (10/10/88)
>Many incendiary statements about the zoo copyright policy have been >posted on the net ... > >These provisions allow everyone, everywhere, to make and extract zoo >files without making a monitary contribution or without fear of incompatible >formats appearing. I suppose reasonable people could quibble about some >of these provisions, but compared to the alternatives, the choice is clear. > >Paul Homchick >---------- I think a liitle understanding is called for on both sides of this issue. This is not intended to be "incediary" and I hope it is not considered a mere "quibble". I can understand how those whose contact with the outside world is exclusively via this network consider ZOO as a godsend, saving us all from further involvement in the ARC wars. For the many of us who also use CompuServe (which does not meet the $8.00/hr @ 1200 baud restriction), however, it becomes just another utility we will be forced to keep around for the ZOO-format postings we find here. The choice for us is (1) zoo and arc or (2) just arc. Many of us consider a single archiving format preferable to multiple formats. The restrictions placed on ZOO prevent it from making a bid to be that one format. Too bad. It looked promising at first. John Hardin hardin%hpindda@hplabs.hp.com ----------
tbetz@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Betz) (10/12/88)
Quoth hardin@hpindda.HP.COM (John Hardin) in <4330109@hpindda.HP.COM>: |>These provisions allow everyone, everywhere, to make and extract zoo |>files without making a monitary contribution or without fear of incompatible |>formats appearing. I suppose reasonable people could quibble about some |>of these provisions, but compared to the alternatives, the choice is clear. |> |>Paul Homchick |>---------- | |I think a liitle understanding is called for on both sides of this issue. |This is not intended to be "incediary" and I hope it is not considered a mere |"quibble". I can understand how those whose contact with the outside world |is exclusively via this network consider ZOO as a godsend, saving us all from |further involvement in the ARC wars. For the many of us who also use |CompuServe (which does not meet the $8.00/hr @ 1200 baud restriction), however, |it becomes just another utility we will be forced to keep around for the |ZOO-format postings we find here. The choice for us is (1) zoo and arc |or (2) just arc. Many of us consider a single archiving format preferable |to multiple formats. The restrictions placed on ZOO prevent it from making |a bid to be that one format. Too bad. It looked promising at first. | |John Hardin hardin%hpindda@hplabs.hp.com John, Rahul has stated >repeatedly< that the only restriction he requires is that the >latest version< of ZOO not be posted on C$erve. Therefore, as the latest version of ZOO I've seen is 2.02, there is no reason why 2.01 (which is very little different) could not be made available on C$erve. His restriction is really no restriction. You're making a big fuss over nothing. Although, Rahul, to avoid this kind of confusion, I would recommend you drop the restriction as well. Because, even as you have described it, you are also making a bit of a fuss over what is really nothing, and it just confuses people like John. |---------- -- MY CURRENT FAVORITE ADVERTISING LINES: |Tom Betz "Look what they done to old Duke! |ZCNY, Yonkers, NY 10701-2509 Next year I'm plantin' corn." |UUCP: tbetz@dasys1.UUCP or "It's not >that< crazy! Rosemary..." | ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (10/13/88)
>John, Rahul has stated >repeatedly< that the only restriction he requires is >that the >latest version< of ZOO not be posted on C$erve. > >Although, Rahul, to avoid this kind of confusion, I would recommend you >drop the restriction as well. Please, Rahul, remove the restriction! I find the ZOO restriction very confusing, because the restrictions in earlier versions (which are imbedded in the documentation and executable) have been superceded in the documentation for later versions! This is silly: I cannot know if I can freely distribute the version I HAVE until I first check to see if there is a newer version first! And, in fact, if I AM bound to redistribute only non-latest versions of zoo, then I am forced to distribute a version which has an obsolete copyright notice in it! Now, not only am I confused, but everyone who received a copy of ZOO through me is also confused, because I am not allowed to distribute the latest version which contains the up-to-date copyright! Rahul, at LEAST re-release zoo version xxx which is freely distributable with the CORRECT copyright notice (i.e. that it is freely distributable) so that I can distribute it without confusion! Even better: remove this SILLY restriction - what is your gripe against Compu$erve, anyhow? -- john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn smail: jpn@teddy.genrad.com
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (10/14/88)
In article <5107@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >...what is your gripe against Compu$erve, anyhow? I don't have a black list of people forbidden from distributing zoo, if that's what you were implying. All that CompuServe has to do is put zoo in an area on which it does not claim a compilation copyright, and charge $8/hour or less for 1200 bps downloads from that area. If you would like to see zoo 2.x distributed on CompuServe, talk to an representative of the company and explain to him how to do it. It's not a question of gripes. It's a question of keeping free software free, or as near free as will let people distribute it without losing money. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
rap@olivej.olivetti.com (Robert A. Pease) (10/14/88)
In article <4314@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: > >It's not a question of gripes. It's a question of keeping free >software free, or as near free as will let people distribute it without >losing money. >-- >Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi Rahul, So far, I have just silently read the articles go by saying, "Please remove the download price restriction!" I understood what you were trying to get at, so I figured no big deal. Now someone has come up with the first argument that I can agree with. If any copyright notice on a version of zoo modifies the copyright notice on earlier versions, there WILL be confusion. I have seen, throughout my work history, the people who make decisions for the company's product make some of the stupidest choices I can imagine. While I can see that the company's customers won't recieve it [the choice] well, the people making these decisions can't seem to understand this. Confusion, restrictive capabilities and poor documentation seem to be the biggest repeated mistakes made by companies who are supposed to be "SERVICING THEIR CUSTOMERS". As far as the downloading-price policy that you have chosen, as I said, I understand what you are trying to get at. I also see you resisting the people who are trying to get you to change this policy. My suggestion to you is, "Let them charge what the market will bear." Concider what this means before reacting to the statement. If Compuserve (for lack of a better example) charges $100/hr to download the latest and greatest zoo, I can choose to pay the price or not. If I know that "FooBar BBS" only charges me $10/hr to download zoo, then I, obviously, would choose that source instead. But the important consideration is that I get to choose. If I need zoo and can't (or don't know how to) get it anywhere else than from Compuserve, that option is open to me. Again, I get to choose. I think you can see that it is important for me to be able to choose for myself. So, the balls in your court. Robert A. Pease {hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}!oliveb!olivej!rap
w8sdz@smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) (10/14/88)
All of the commercial online services have compilation copyrights.
That's how they keep their competitors from wholesale downloading
everything to put on another competing service. It would appear that
the prohibitions in ZOO would prevent it from being carried by *any*
online commercial service, regardless of the price charged for
downloading.
--
--Keith Petersen
Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL [26.0.0.74]
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL
Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!simtel20.army.mil!w8sdzhardin@hpindda.HP.COM (John Hardin) (10/14/88)
>John, Rahul has stated >repeatedly< that the only restriction he requires is >that the >latest version< of ZOO not be posted on C$erve. Therefore, as the >latest version of ZOO I've seen is 2.02, there is no reason why 2.01 (which is >very little different) could not be made available on C$erve. > >His restriction is really no restriction. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Interesting logic. >You're making a big fuss over nothing. Honestly, I tried not to. >Although, Rahul, to avoid this kind of confusion, I would recommend you >drop the restriction as well. I agree with this! >Because, even as you have described it, you are also making a bit of a fuss >over what is really nothing, and it just confuses people like John. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >|Tom Betz >---------- Tom, you're really asking for flames back when you post little jibes like this, but I will try to refrain. I am certainly not confused. Rather, I was trying to clarify a point of view that is not uncommon but that was getting lost under emotionalism. Ask yourself how you would feel about using a tool whose latest features and bug fixes could not be made available to you over your chosen service. Whether or not you think this is silly, lots of people are going to feel this way. (Why is it that on CompuServe people are so much more polite to each other? Could it be because they are paying for their connect time?) John Hardin ----------
ncperson@ndsuvax.UUCP (Found Person) (10/15/88)
Rahul's restriction makes sence to me. What is confusing me is the compuserve policy. I've never had the inclination to use compuserve, mostly because I consider it to be too expensive. Someone wanna send me e-mail on their policy concerning uploads? Thanks -Brett -- Brett G. Person North Dakota State University uunet!ndsuvax!ncperson | ncperson@ndsuvax.bitnet
rde@ukc.ac.uk (R.D.Eager) (10/15/88)
I too have watched the ZOO/ARC discussion in silence so far. I now feel it
is time to put fingers to keyboard. There are two parts to this message;
first, about the ARC/PKARC fiasco..the second about ZOO.
First, I don't think either SEA or PKWARE are blameless in the affair, but
the one thing that really irritated me was the aggressive way in which Phil
Katz continually put down SEA's product. I am convinced that a major reason
for the later (incompatible) compression technique was that he could then
allow disinformation to be spread indicating that ARC was faulty in some
way, so that he could maximise his (fairly considerable) income from PKARC.
As for those who are now saying they will use Phil's new product before they
have even seen it, well, that is just plain stupid. It may be good, it may not;
to say you are going to use it anyway.....
Now I have blown off steam about that, on to part two. I think ZOO is a good
product, and Rahul makes some fair points about distribution. I have
changed exclusively to using ZOO, keeping only a copy of ARCE for extraction
purposes for stuff off the net. I would like to see eveyone using ZOO, since
Rahul is the only person to come out of this affair (if he was ever really
in it!) with any credibility.
I too understand Rahul's point about keeping the software low cost, and
making sure that Compuserve etc. don't rip people off. I also see that this
confusion is doing the universal acceptance of ZOO some damage, and I am
sad about that (I would like to see SEA and PKWARE lose out on this, and
in any case I believe ZOO is better). My suggestion is as follows.
1. Make it a condition that ZOO must be distributed in a complete and
unmodified form, including documentation.
2. Make it crystal clear in the documentation that if anyone reading it
has been charged more than $X for downloading, copying etc., then they
have been ripped off.
This would make sure that only a few people would be charged over the odds
before Compuserve started to lose business and any good market image they
may have. Any alteration to the documentation would potentially attract
litigation.
I know this isn't a perfect solution, but I hope it's a starting point. I
really think the ZOO restrictions need revising, while respecting Rahul's
wishes.
--
Bob Eager
rde@ukc.UUCP
...!mcvax!ukc!rde
Phone: +44 227 764000 ext 7589pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (10/15/88)
In article <8683@smoke.ARPA> w8sdz@brl.arpa (Keith B. Petersen (WSMR|towson) <w8sdz>) writes:
...All of the commercial online services have compilation copyrights.
...That's how they keep their competitors from wholesale downloading
...everything to put on another competing service. It would appear that
...the prohibitions in ZOO would prevent it from being carried by *any*
...online commercial service, regardless of the price charged for
...downloading.
...--
...--Keith Petersen
...Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL [26.0.0.74]
...Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL
...Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!simtel20.army.mil!w8sdz
Keith,
Two things.
(1) Would you explain what is meant by a compilation copyright and how
the one you know well affects/does not affect downloading ZOO from a
commercial information service? Thnaks.
(2) Would you look in your SIMTEL archives and see if there's a CP/M-80
emulator that'll run on a 68010? Thanks again.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800johnm@trsvax.UUCP (10/17/88)
> All that CompuServe has to do is put >zoo in an area on which it does not claim a compilation copyright, and >charge $8/hour or less for 1200 bps downloads from that area. Speaking as someone who has spent $3000 on CompuServe just this year :-)... There are precedents for areas on CompuServe that do not have any cost but there are no such precedents for areas over which CompuServe will not claim a compilation copyright. AND (<- Big and), you can pretty much forget the idea that your program is going to receive any kind of special treatment in either respect. Here's why... Let's say your CompuServe and it would certainly be nice to switch over and have this other guys whiz bang (litigation free) archiver available on your service but he has distribution requirements that require you to set up a special area over which you have no compilation copyright and which you charge nothing for or less money for. Do you do it? No!! HELL NO!!!!!!!!!! Why not? Because author B (who writes Spudgemaster 2000, a popular shareware Spudge cataloger) then pops up with his new distribution requirements, "I want my software to be distributed cheaper also, I'm tired of Compu$erve gouging people!" Ditto with other authors. Be serious here, if you were the author of some of these other products wouldn't you demand that they also be available at a reduced download cost (or free)? I would. Also the existence of the so called compilation copyright should in theory only keep another new service from just downloading everything on CompuServe and then just coming online one day with all of their charges $1 less an hour. It would not (and I tend to say cannot) affect any form of distribution that private individuals offer. I'm not inclined to argue this point however because whether you are right or they or right on the compilation copyright they will see the first point I mentioned above and that will be that. >It's not a question of gripes. It's a question of keeping free >software free, or as near free as will let people distribute it without >losing money. >-- >Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi Unfortunately, it is also a question of business in these peoples minds. And business always comes before people.......... John Munsch I'm on your side but I'm afraid it all comes down to how much you really want ZOO to be a standard.