dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (08/17/88)
All right already. I'm about to post MS-DOS zoo and related binaries
to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. These programs have not been posted to this
newsgroup since it became moderated, and I keep getting requests, so
I'll go ahead and post them.
Also, I would like to inform people that site "rb442", my UUCP zoo
server that was reachable at (317) 285-8661, is currently down because
they have installed 6-wire jacks here and rb442 is out of circuit until
I work out a way of putting it back on the phone line.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesipjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (08/18/88)
In article <3668@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
...All right already. I'm about to post MS-DOS zoo and related binaries
...to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. These programs have not been posted to this
...newsgroup since it became moderated, and I keep getting requests, so
Rahul,
Will you be posting source code that can also be used with a
SysV machine?
What version of ZOO is this?
Why do most of my messages seem to consist of questions only? :-)
Petecck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (08/19/88)
>In article <3668@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >...All right already. I'm about to post MS-DOS zoo and related binaries >...to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. These programs have not been posted to this >...newsgroup since it became moderated, and I keep getting requests, so I trust the posted version will have one very anti-social aspect fixed: The version I have makes multiple copies of linked files. It then breaks the links on extraction.
davidsen@steinmetz.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) (08/19/88)
In article <2837@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu.UUCP (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: | >In article <3668@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: | >...All right already. I'm about to post MS-DOS zoo and related binaries | >...to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. These programs have not been posted to this | >...newsgroup since it became moderated, and I keep getting requests, so | | I trust the posted version will have one very anti-social aspect | fixed: | | The version I have makes multiple copies of linked files. It | then breaks the links on extraction. I thought I knew MS-DOS pretty well, but how do you create links in DOS? I could save a lot of space doing that. I asked a few people around here and they don't know about it either. Can you just tell me a manual name and topic (or page)? -- bill davidsen (wedu@ge-crd.arpa) {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (08/20/88)
In article <11920@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <2837@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu.UUCP (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >| >In article <3668@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >| >...All right already. I'm about to post MS-DOS zoo and related binaries >| >...to comp.binaries.ibm.pc. These programs have not been posted to this >| >...newsgroup since it became moderated, and I keep getting requests, so >| >| I trust the posted version will have one very anti-social aspect >| fixed: >| >| The version I have makes multiple copies of linked files. It >| then breaks the links on extraction. > > I thought I knew MS-DOS pretty well, but how do you create links in >DOS? I could save a lot of space doing that. I asked a few people around >here and they don't know about it either. Unfortunately, the only linkage I've seen on MSDOS has been when something got scrambled. I've had chkdsk report linked files (it used slightly different terminology, which I've forgotten), and sure enough, truncating one of the pair truncated the other.... What I should have said is: (a) THE **IX version of zoo archives linked files link times. It breaks the links on output and gives you link copies of the originally linked files. (b) The **IX should emulate tar in its treament of links on **IX systems. On MSDOS systems (when you have imported an archive from **IX containing linked files) it should give you the option of one copy of the linked files or multiple copies of the linked files. Sorry for the confusing statement. E H. Kinmonth Hist. Dept. Univ. of Ca., Davis Davis, Ca. 95616 916-752-1636/0776 Disclaimer: I teach Japanese history. What do I know about programming. Internet: ehkinmonth@ucdavis.edu cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu BITNET: ehkinmonth@ucdavis UUCP: {ucbvax, lll-crg}!ucdavis!ehkinmonth {ucbvax, lll-crg}!ucdavis!deneb!cck
brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) (08/21/88)
In article <11920@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
<
< I thought I knew MS-DOS pretty well, but how do you create links in
<DOS? I could save a lot of space doing that. I asked a few people around
<here and they don't know about it either.
I suppose one could create a link manually, using Norton's, by adding an
entry to the required directory. This could be done by repeating the
directory information of the file as it currently exists. But, DOS has
no way of keeping track of this, so if you deleted it in one of the
directories, DOS wouldn't know that an entry still exists elsewhere. Then
the other entries would still be there without the file existing.
Needless to say, it won't be worth it.
--
harvard-\ att--\
Mr. Video ucbvax!uwvax.................!nicmad!brown
rutgers-/ rolls-/ decvax--/blacher@irs3.UUCP (Robert Blacher) (08/25/88)
Rahul -- Thanks for posting ZOO v2.00 DOS version executables to the net. Your README.1ST file contains a rather strange copyright, to put it mildly. While I can appreciate your desire not to have others profiteer on what you're making available for free, did you realize your copyright statement (really a license) would prohibit the Capitol PC Users' Group, a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization, from putting ZOO on one of their disks? The file was also refused by Compuserve when uploaded there, which they had to do in light of your "no more than $8 an hour" statement. I recognize there will be a longer statement of your license when the source for ZOO 2.01 is released. I hope you'll give some careful thought to it. ZOO can't be considered at all as an ARC alternative by BBS systems with the restrictions you now have on it. Thanks. You know where to find me and I'll be glad to discuss this further with you and offer any help I can on this. ...bob
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (08/26/88)
In article <521@irs3.UUCP> blacher@irs3.UUCP (Robert Blacher) writes: >...did you realize >your copyright statement (really a license) would prohibit the >Capitol PC Users' Group, a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization, >from putting ZOO on one of their disks? The file was also >refused by Compuserve when uploaded there, which they had to >do in light of your "no more than $8 an hour" statement. The copyright statement with version 2.01 source will allow virtually unrestricted distribution of 1.71 and all prior versions, so nobody will be denied the ability to extract any zoo archive. Version 1.71 has all the essential features and no significant known bugs. It's distributed as AmigaDOS and MS-DOS binaries and the source is directly compilable on VMS, 4.3BSD, and System V machines. Version 1.71 zoo can extract archives created by all existing and planned versions of zoo. I'll be happy to give the Capitol PC Users' Group, and any other not-for-profit or nonprofit organization that asks, permission to put zoo on its disks. Anybody who doesn't like the copyright policy can always say, "here's why you should let me distribute zoo on my terms", and the copyright statement does say that the restrictions may be relaxed by special agreement. There are only a handful of organizations whose distribution terms aren't already in compliance. BBS sysops can distribute zoo, since they typically don't violate any of the conditions in the copyright statement. There has been a tendency in recent years for people to collect free software and attempt to restrict its further redistribution. Besides companies that sell microcomputer software this way (usually claiming some sort of compilation copyright), there's also the example of Berkeley collecting and distributing free software but requiring recipients to not distribute it further without a license from AT&T. (This seems to be changing now--a good trend.) I think software authors should fight this. I'm all for no-holds-barred public domain or free software, but it usually doesn't stay public domain or free for long. So long as somebody is going to attempt to restrict distribution later, I may as well make sure I pre-empt that attempt so it gets distributed on terms that make sense to me, not to somebody else. (I used to call Bob Blacher's excellent Computer Connection BBS at one time. I cancelled my PC Pursuit subscription though, and stopped calling there. Maybe I'll call again, Bob, if the BBS is still there.) -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
blacher@irs3.UUCP (Robert Blacher) (08/29/88)
Rahul -- A few points in reply: (1) ZOO is your program so, of course, you can restrict use of it any way you wish. But, BBS systems are currently considering replacing ARChives as our method of storing files in light of the insane position that SEA is taking on copyright/trademark issues. In evaluating ZOO as a possible replacement, your copyright position must be looked at. At the moment, my own view is that your copyright adds too much complexity and carries too many restrictions to be appropriate for BBS use. (2) The fact that a group like CPCUG could write to you and obtain permission to put ZOO v2.00 on one of their disks is besides the point. That's a pain in the butt for both them and you. Having to seek your permission should be saved for *rare* cases at the borders of your policy. That's the whole idea of a clear statement of licensing policy. (3) You didn't respond to my point that CompuServe could not post ZOO v2.00 with its current license so I have to assume that was intentional. You might as well know that the story is circulating that you are associated with GEnie and that the $8.00 an hour figure in your license was purposely chosen to allow GEnie to distribute ZOO but not CIS. *If* that's true (and I mention it to you for the express purpose of your having a chance to dispel that story), then that's a real problem. BBS sysops can't adopt ZOO or any other storage/compression system if the author of that system is going to be playing favorites. (4) I am in whole-hearted agreement with you with regard to organizations that restrict further redistribution of programs or otherwise claim a "compilation" copyright (a term that is much in dispute at the moment). Your statements on this issue in the ZOO v2.00 executables docs weren't clear enough for me to say whether the restrictions you've imposed get you where you want to go without accidentally being overbroad. I look forward to seeing a more complete discussion of it in the 2.01 sources. Finally, yes, my BBS is still alive and well and you're welcome to drop by for a visit any time you wish. I can well understand your giving up on PC Pursuit -- that service is an utter disaster at the moment. ...bob
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (09/02/88)
Reference: <522@irs3.UUCP> from blacher@irs3.UUCP (Robert Blacher).
Of the various points Robert Blacher made, I'll address just one in this
article to keep it short. (More in the future.) He said:
You didn't respond to my point that CompuServe could not post ZOO
v2.00 with its current license so I have to assume that was
intentional. You might as well know that the story is circulating
that you are associated with GEnie and that the $8.00 an hour
figure in your license was purposely chosen to allow GEnie to
distribute ZOO but not CIS. *If* that's true (and I mention it to
you for the express purpose of your having a chance to dispel that
story), then that's a real problem. BBS sysops can't adopt ZOO or
any other storage/compression system if the author of that system
is going to be playing favorites.
The reason why I chose $8.00/hour as a reasonable maximum rate for
online distribution was because there were some services (People/Link,
GEnie) at around $5/hour and there were some (BIX, CompuServe, The
Source) at about $12-15/hour. If I had to set a limit at all, it had
to fall in between these two clusterings to have any real meaning. It
used to be $7/hour, but I bumped it up to make sure that nobody would
have to distribute the software at a loss. (Recently, another type of
commercial service, uunet, has been created, for UNIX machine-to-
machine communications. It started at around $4/hour via Tymnet, and
went up by a couple of dollars recently.) I see nothing unreasonable
about my rate limit.
Bob, your phrase, "CompuServe could not post ZOO v2.00 with its current
license" is not correct. Any online service can distribute zoo 2.0x
with only a few restrictions. Essentially, these are: (1) make no
attempt to restrict redistribution in any way, and (2) distribute it at
$8/hour or less. Perhaps what you meant was that CompuServe, BIX, The
Source, whoever, choose not to follow these two requirements. I'm not
willing to accept responsibility for their choice.
The first requirement I won't try to justify here (it was discussed in
my previous article about this subject). The second is simply an
attempt to be a factor in the market that decides service rates. I
firmly believe in the free market--I would be the last one to suggest
that the government set limits on rates--but I see nothing wrong with
me trying to influence the market in a small way to effect a beneficial
change.
By the way, I'm not current with what's going on in the various online
services. It has been quite a while (since around March) that I logged
into either Compuserve, GEnie, or People/Link, and I don't know what
the current rates/policies are.
However, if you have contacts at any online service that would like to
work around these requirements without charging less or while still
attempting to restrict redistribution of software that it does not own,
I'll make you an offer: Tell them to arrange to pay 10% of the gross
obtained from the downloads of the zoo software to the Ball State
Foundation. This Foundation is a non-profit organization that collects
funds that it uses to further the cause of higher education. The
online service's users will still be able to download the software, and
the online service will still make more than enough money to cover its
costs, and students in Indiana will benefit.
I won't attach a copy of the copyright statment here from the 2.01
source, because I'm about to post the whole thing to comp.sources.unix
and it's on the disks I distribute to anybody who sends disks/mailer.
But it makes it unnecessary for anybody to complain, because all
previous restrictions on versions 1.71 and earlier are lifted, and
you can distribute it with or without a compilation copyright and
at any hourly rate. The only requirement is that you tell users before
they download that there's a later version somewhere.
Note that all versions of zoo and looz (going all the way back to 1.0)
will extract and list all archives created by all versions of zoo. So
if anybody who distributes software at $12-15/hour is looking for a
standard, zoo 1.71 for VMS and UNIX and zoo 1.51 for MS-DOS fits the
bill. (I don't recall the version number for AmigaDOS lower than 2.0;
probably 1.5 or 1.71.) And don't forget that earlier versions of zoo,
and all versions of looz, sez, stuff, and atoz, are pure public
domain.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesitif@cpe.UUCP (09/03/88)
Written 3:00 pm Sep 1, 1988 by bsu-cs.UUCP!dhesi in cpe:comp.sy.ibm.pc >I firmly believe in the free market--I would be the last one to suggest >that the government set limits on rates--but I see nothing wrong with >me trying to influence the market in a small way to effect a beneficial >change. >... >I'll make you an offer: Tell them to arrange to pay 10% of the gross >obtained from the downloads of the zoo software to the Ball State >Foundation. >... >all previous restrictions on versions 1.71 and earlier are lifted, >... >And don't forget that earlier versions of zoo, >and all versions of looz, sez, stuff, and atoz, are pure public >domain. Cheers to Rahul Dhesi. Obviously more reasonable than most others. BTW, is "zoo" an acronym or what? Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. {convex,killer}!ninja!cpe!tif
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (09/05/88)
In article <3839@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
<The reason why I chose $8.00/hour as a reasonable maximum rate for
<online distribution was because there were some services (People/Link,
<GEnie) at around $5/hour and there were some (BIX, CompuServe, The
<Source) at about $12-15/hour. If I had to set a limit at all, it had
<to fall in between these two clusterings to have any real meaning. It
<used to be $7/hour, but I bumped it up to make sure that nobody would
<have to distribute the software at a loss. (Recently, another type of
<commercial service, uunet, has been created, for UNIX machine-to-
<machine communications. It started at around $4/hour via Tymnet, and
<went up by a couple of dollars recently.) I see nothing unreasonable
<about my rate limit.
There's just a slight problem here...
CIS rates depend *strongly* on the baud rate! At 300 bps it costs around
$6.50/hr. 450 bps is the same. 1200 & 2400 are $12.75, and higher rates
(which require special arrangments) cost a *lot* more.
So we have the sutuation where they could distribute it, but only if they
modify the system to restrict downloads at certain baud rates...
Compuserve may be expensive, but *I* picked them (long ago) because they
were the only service that would direct bill me. Most other serviices
*still* require that you be billed thru a credit card (which I neither
have nor want). They also seem to have the largest subscriber base.
I'm not saying "You have to let them distribute it." I am merely pointing
out a few things...
As for the restrictions on redistribution, CIS's policies are *not*
incompatible with your copyright. All they claim is a compilation
copyright, and in any case if the copyright holder speciificly request that
they not go after someone for redistrubting the software (and it sounds like
your copyright notice does so) they won't. They just don't want someone
downloading entire "libraries" for them and thern offering the data to
others for profit. I can see their point on this!
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (09/06/88)
It's painful to read Rahul's response to Bob Blacher. Basically I hear "nolo contendere" there... Rahul favors certain rate structures (and by extension, the services offering those rate structures) and wants to try and enforce his preference in the 2.01 distribution agreement. Bad for two reasons -- Rahul has no clout at all unless & until his archiver becomes a universal standard, which on its technical merits it deserves to be, except it hasn't got a prayer if it comes laden with restrictive clauses this early in the game. Nobody, NOBODY is gonna be fooled. Second reason is that the $8.00 rule is bogus in itself. When measuring downloading expense, the cost ought to be measured in dollars per kilobyte, not per hour. For instance, it's usually cheaper to grab a file at 2400bps from CIS than from GEnie at 1200 or 2400, because of the protocol and speed differentials. Rahul has better things to do than try to be a "market factor" in how much these services charge the kiddies to peck away at Spacewar, which is where the big price differences kick in. At bare minimum, the looz extractor must be distributable without restriction or zoo is a dead duck. Beware negative publicity, as Phil K. might say. -- 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)
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (09/06/88)
In article <6263@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) makes some points. See original article for context. >When >measuring downloading expense, the cost ought to be measured in dollars >per kilobyte, not per hour. Downloading throughput is very hard to measure consistently. It varies with time and with protocol. (Last time I measured it at CIS about a year ago, it was approximately 30 characters per second while I was logged in at 1200 bps. I didn't try 2400 bps, but far more people use 1200 bps than 2400 bps.) >Rahul has better things to do >than try to be a "market factor" in how much these services charge the >kiddies to peck away at Spacewar, which is where the big price >differences kick in. I don't care how much they charge for Spacewar or for anything else. I just care how much they charge for distributing version 2.0x of my software. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (09/06/88)
In article <6263@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >At bare minimum, the looz extractor must be distributable without >restriction or zoo is a dead duck. Tom, are you trying to confuse me? When you run looz it says it is public domain. Its documentation says the same thing. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
limes@ouroborous (Greg Limes) (09/07/88)
In article <3859@bsu-cs.UUCP>, dhesi@bsu-cs (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >Downloading throughput is very hard to measure consistently. It varies >with time and with protocol. (Last time I measured it at CIS about a >year ago, it was approximately 30 characters per second while I was >logged in at 1200 bps. I didn't try 2400 bps, but far more people use >1200 bps than 2400 bps.) My download throughput at 1200 baud (using "Quick-B" protocol) runs between 80 and 120 (!) characters per second, and at 2400 runs between 150 and 240; if I care to call late at night (and do, for those big transfers), I can keep overall transfer efficiency at between 230 and 240 cps. >I don't care how much they charge for Spacewar or for anything else. I >just care how much they charge for distributing version 2.0x of my >software. If the baud rate doubles, it takes (roughly) half as long to transfer, so using connect time charges as a cutoff makes LESS sense than a per-kilobyte or per-baud computation. Assuming you figured $8.00/hr at 1200 baud, and a reasonablly efficient transfer routine (say, 100 cps), that comes to about $0.08 per cps of throughput; $8.00 for 360kb comes to roughly $20/megabyte. This means it is now possible for a service to charge more for higher speed links, assuming they are bound by your license. This reflects the real world much more closely than expecting a 56 kilobaud hardwire link to cost the same as a 110 baud pennywhistle accoustic coupled link. One step further, though; your license prohibits most long distance carriers from allowing ZOO to be transmitted long distance. $8.00 per hour comes to a bit over $0.13 per minute; I tend to call a lot of "free" bulletin board systems that cost more than this in phone charges. Whose responsibility is it that I am being charged more than $8.00 per hour to download your program now? MCI? They never see the contract. The BBS? They have no way of knowing that I am on a long distance trunk. Me? Yes. So who bears the cost of your $8.00/hr limit? Gee, I could download at 2400 baud from CompuServe (at $12.75/hr) with a local call, but thats too expensive, so I have to make a long distance call (at upwards of $24/hr) to get to a "free" system that would carry it. Or I have to subscribe to a different service (Genie, maybe?), which may not have a node in my home town, so now its $6.00 per hour (or whatever the number comes to) to Genie plus another $10.00 per hour to MCI; or maybe I come in via TeleNet, and that could also push the cost up above your magic line. I dunno. I think I will stick with ARC, or PK's latest. Good work on the program, but your licensing restrictions bite the wax tadpole. -- Greg Limes [limes@sun.com] semper ubi, sub ubi #ifndef FLAME_PROOF #include <std-disclaimer.h> #endif
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (09/07/88)
In article <3860@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In article <6263@dasys1.UUCP> tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >>At bare minimum, the looz extractor must be distributable without >>restriction or zoo is a dead duck. >Tom, are you trying to confuse me? When you run looz it says it is >public domain. Its documentation says the same thing. No confusion intended -- not having a copy of looz handy, I couldn't remember whether it satisfied what I considered the "bare minimum"; I'm happy to hear it does. As long as sysops can all have looz on their boards, they shouldn't mind storing zoo files, which helps establish the standard. -- 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)