peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/11/88)
I have just been informed... > ...that a West-Berlin based company > is offering Browser along with 46 other PD/ShareWare products as a > sampler for DM 95,- (about $50)... The person who informed me of this went on to say that this is a clear offense against general PD rules, since the disks are being sold for $5 apiece. The message went on to offer to help me should I wish to seek legal recourse. Frankly, I don't see what the problem is. First, this is improving the distribution of a program I wished to be as widely distributed as possible. I wish Commodore shipped Browser with every Amiga. I wrote it because there is a serious gap between the CLI and the the Workbench, a gap I saw I could fill. Second, there is nothing wrong with charging for PD stuff. Fred Fish does this. For $5 a disk, even. The only thing that would upset me would be if they tried to prevent other people from passing it on for free... but even that is not illegal. the concept of a compilation copyright is pretty widely accepted. I understand that some of the other authors whose works have been included in this collection are upset. They should certainly contect the company and make their feelings known. I don't see what they can legally do, though. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (09/11/88)
In article <2601@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I have just been informed... >> ...that a West-Berlin based company >> is offering Browser along with 46 other PD/ShareWare products as a >> sampler for DM 95,- (about $50)... > >The person who informed me of this went on to say that this is a clear >offense against general PD rules, since the disks are being sold for >$5 apiece. The message went on to offer to help me should I wish to seek >legal recourse. > >the concept of a compilation copyright is pretty widely accepted. > >I understand that some of the other authors whose works have been included in >this collection are upset. They should certainly contect the company and make >their feelings known. I don't see what they can legally do, though. Right. They can't do anything. Once a program has been released into the public domain, anybody can do anyting they want with it. If some software author is annoyed that their PD program is being sold, they probably should have include some phrase like: Copyright 1988 by Foo Bar. All rights reserved. Never to be sold. Rights for limited non-commercial distributon granted. For any other use, contact the author at: (address). Thats *probably* enough to do it, but of course a lawyer would know better. -- The only good Nazi is a dead Argentinian. richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone}!gryphon!richard
schabacker@frambo.dec.com (Tim, posting for CB) (09/20/88)
Well, you all read Peters (and Richards) posting, and yes, it was me
who informed Peter about these greedy slimeballs.
I'll post my answer to Peter here:
----
The distressing factors are:
1. I receive my Fish disks directly from Fred, and glady pay my $5
per disk, since I get them as soon as they're available AND via
AirMail for that price. And don't forget that Fred usually does more
than grab "prepared" work and puts it on his disks.
2. Compared to most other PD distributors in W. Germany, they take
TWICE the price (yes Virginia, you can get ALL sort of PD disks in
Germany for about $2.50 per disk or less, depending on the amount of
disks).
3. These 46 offered programs are exactly the same they describe in
their "Das zweite Amiga Public Domain Buch". This book features a
German translation and description of the documentation to that
programs. This product costs about $25, which I can tolerate, since
there is actual work (translation) involved.
To compose my points:
I simply makes me puke if some a**hole makes a quick (big) buck with
the work of others.
----
To quote Peter's Browser documentation:
"Browser version 1.2, copyright 1987, 1988 by Peter da Silva.
Binary redistribution permitted at no charge."
^^^^^^^^^
Alas this probably means that Peter wants no money for Browser,
charging anything more than the reproduction costs for that program
strikes me as highly immoral.
And to quote the TurboBackup.doc (which is also on that sampler):
DISCLAIMER
----------
Copyright 1988 by Steffen Stempel and Martin Kopp.
You may distribute this program for non-commercial purposes.
You are encouraged to make as much copies of TURBOBACKUP as
you like as long as you're not violating any of the statements
below.
- Nobody except the authors are allowed to gain any profit by
using and/or distributing this program. This includes the
duplication of commercial disks.
.
.
or let's quote the zoo docs:
Distribution of the executable AmigaZoo is permitted
subject to the following conditions. Any violation of
these conditions may lead to damages in favor of the
copyright owner.
AmigaZoo 1.71 may be duplicated and distributed, or
made available for downloading via telecommunications,
for no fee above normal connect charges. Organizations
charging more than a total of $5.00 postpaid for the
disk(s) containing AmigaZoo are prohibited from
distributing AmigaZoo. It is prohibited to distribute
AmigaZoo as part of any package over which anybody
other than Rahul Dhesi claims a licensing right, right
of distribution, or copyright or compilation copyright
of any kind. It is prohibited to distribute AmigaZoo
with any copyright notices removed.
etc.
Needless to say that since I own two hard disks, my four disk drives
are usually copying Fish disks for all my fellow brewers and friends
FOR FREE. Even for individuals I don't know or like.
Enough of this, my stomach hurts. :-(
- <CB>
-- _ _
/ / | \ \ <CB> aka Christian Balzer - The Software Brewery -
< < |-< > decwrl!frambo.dec.com!schabacker OR schabacker@frambo.dec.com
\ \_ |_/ / CIS: 71001,210 (be brief!), Phone: +49 6150 4151
------------ Snail: Im Wingertsberg 45, D-6108 Weiterstadt, F.R.G.
"...anti-semitism, anti-racism,..." G. Bush for sanitorpeter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/21/88)
In article <8809201234.AA02448@decwrl.dec.com>, schabacker@frambo.dec.com (Tim, posting for CB) writes: > I'll post my answer to Peter here: OK. I'll answer it too. You seem like a nice guy, and I'm not trying to put you down. I just want to put out a fire before it starts. > The distressing factors are: > 1. I receive my Fish disks directly from Fred, and glady pay my $5 > per disk, since I get them as soon as they're available AND via > AirMail for that price. And don't forget that Fred usually does more > than grab "prepared" work and puts it on his disks. So, you're willing to pay more for Fred's disks because they have added value... > 2. Compared to most other PD distributors in W. Germany, they take > TWICE the price... ... and these people seem to be able to sell disks at this price. I wonder why... > 3. These 46 offered programs are exactly the same they describe in > their "Das zweite Amiga Public Domain Buch". This book features a > German translation and description of the documentation to that > programs. ... and here's the explanation: there is added value. These disks represent a collection that matches a book they wrote. It's worth that money for people to get the collection in one place. > This product costs about $25, which I can tolerate, since > there is actual work (translation) involved. Very noble of you to let them earn money for translating dozens, if not hundreds, of documents. I'd love a copy of the Browser docs in German. > [It] simply makes me puke if some a**hole makes a quick (big) buck with > the work of others. But they've done the work: collecting these programs and translating their documentation. Why shouldn't they be entitled to return on their investment? And I really really doubt they're making big bucks. Fred sure isn't. > To quote Peter's Browser documentation: > "Browser version 1.2, copyright 1987, 1988 by Peter da Silva. > Binary redistribution permitted at no charge." > ^^^^^^^^^ And I doubt that they would cut the price of the book or disks any if they left my software off them. Hmmm... that should read '1.3'. I hope they have the right version. > Alas this probably means that Peter wants no money for Browser, Oh, I want money for it. I doubt I'll get any, though. If you'd like to send me some I'll be happy to take it. > charging anything more than the reproduction costs for that program > strikes me as highly immoral. Are you saying that it's not worth any more than the disk it's on? I'm insulted... No, I'm just pulling your leg. It's nice of you to get hot under the collar on my behalf, but really I don't mind all this attention at all. I'm flattered. > - Nobody except the authors are allowed to gain any profit by > using and/or distributing this program. This includes the > duplication of commercial disks. So, let the authors take it up with the company doing the work. > Organizations > charging more than a total of $5.00 postpaid for the > disk(s) containing AmigaZoo are prohibited from > distributing AmigaZoo. There's that $5 again. > Needless to say that since I own two hard disks, my four disk drives > are usually copying Fish disks for all my fellow brewers and friends > FOR FREE. Even for individuals I don't know or like. And Hackercorp is paying uunet connect charges to maintain alt.sources.amiga. But just because people are motivated by other things than money (don't think us selfless for running alt.sources.amiga... we're not), doesn't make people working from the profit motive evil. It's the profit motive that makes things like the Amiga possible. Oh, sure, the people who designed it are great guys who were motivated by the thought of a job well done, but how many Amigas do you think would have come out if they had to wire every one? > Enough of this, my stomach hurts. :-( I'm sorry. Calm down. Take a few deep breaths. Your heart is in the right place, but you need a sense of perspective. Have some fairy cake. Try putting the GNU manifesto on the shelf and paging through some L. Neil Smith or Murray Rothbard. Read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainance. If you can find some early Heinlein, take a break with it. -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today?
dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) (09/21/88)
In article <8809201234.AA02448@decwrl.dec.com> schabacker@frambo.dec.com (Tim, posting for CB) writes: > > >And to quote the TurboBackup.doc (which is also on that sampler): > > DISCLAIMER > ---------- > > Copyright 1988 by Steffen Stempel and Martin Kopp. > You may distribute this program for non-commercial purposes. <stuff deleted> > > - Nobody except the authors are allowed to gain any profit by > using and/or distributing this program. This includes the > duplication of commercial disks. > >or let's quote the zoo docs: > <more deletions> > AmigaZoo 1.71 may be duplicated and distributed, or > made available for downloading via telecommunications, > for no fee above normal connect charges. Organizations > charging more than a total of $5.00 postpaid for the > disk(s) containing AmigaZoo are prohibited from > distributing AmigaZoo. It is prohibited to distribute > AmigaZoo as part of any package over which anybody > other than Rahul Dhesi claims a licensing right, right > of distribution, or copyright or compilation copyright > of any kind. It is prohibited to distribute AmigaZoo > with any copyright notices removed. > Forgive for including so much of the original article, I trimmed as much as could but needed to leave some information. I have a software package that is going to require atleast 4 floppies to distribute, AFTER COMPRESSION. I am using the pd compress utility for the installation. However since not everyone has compress on their system, I chose to throw a copy in there as well to make sure. According to the above disclaimer on ZOO, it would prevent me from ever using AmigaZoo as a distribution mechanism even though it may be more ideal. I would not be charging for 'AmigaZoo', AmigaZoo is actually a very small part of the process and is only used to unzoo the binaries and install them on the harddisk. The user is allowed to do whatever they want with zoo when done. AmigaZoo would get greater distribution since it is almost getting a free ride. So it seems to me the only way for someone to make use of a pd program with such a disclaimer is to contact the copyright holder themself and get written authority to reproduce the pd program and distribute the pd program in a way contradictory to the disclaimer. Was that clear? Was there something I missed? -- Dale Luck Boing, Inc. {cbmvax|oliveb|pyramid}|!amiga!boing!dale Although I do contract work for Amiga-LosGatos, my opinions probably don't represent those of Commodore or its management or its engineers, but I think the world would be a better place if they did.
walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) (09/27/88)
>So it seems to me the only way for someone to make use of a pd program with >such a disclaimer is to contact the copyright holder themself and get >written authority to reproduce the pd program and distribute the pd program >in a way contradictory to the disclaimer. >-- >Dale Luck Boing, Inc. {cbmvax|oliveb|pyramid}|!amiga!boing!dale Exactly correct. The author(s) of zoo have a perfect legal right to prevent anyone from using their product for any purpose whatsoever. They chose to allow non-commercial uses, and require commercial uses be cleared with them first. The Software Distillery also chose this approach with BLink; several commercial developers (including Lattice, which eventually obtained all rights to BLink) contacted us and got our permission to distribute BLink with their product. Our requirements generally were a free copy of the product that included BLink. Zoo is, however, in a slightly different class, since a major part of its function is to distribute software. Apparently, the authors chose not to allow commercial distribution in order to protect themselves from exploitation, but if the Distillery was responsible, we would have no problems granting permission for the use you describe. I suggest contacting the authors.
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (09/28/88)
In article <629@sas.UUCP> walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) writes: >Exactly correct. The author(s) of zoo have a perfect legal right to >prevent anyone from using their product for any purpose whatsoever. They >chose to allow non-commercial uses, and require commercial uses be cleared >with them first. The Software Distillery also chose this approach with >BLink; several commercial developers (including Lattice, which eventually >obtained all rights to BLink) contacted us and got our permission to >distribute BLink with their product. Our requirements generally were a >free copy of the product that included BLink. Zoo is, however, in a >slightly different class, since a major part of its function is to >distribute software. Apparently, the authors chose not to allow commercial ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >distribution in order to protect themselves from exploitation, but if the >Distillery was responsible, we would have no problems granting permission >for the use you describe. I suggest contacting the authors. This is not entirely correct. We (Felsina Software) got permission to include the Zoo executable in our "A-Talk III installation" disk. In fact we got permission to include a whole lot of copyrighted, usually non-commercially distributable utilities, just by asking for permission. Of course, we do NOT claim ANY copyright on the 4-th party software we included, nor we do on the collection of it or charge any extra bucks for the utilities. We had 600K free on the second disk and we decided to fill it with "useful" PD, shareware and copyrighted utilities. We have not found one software author that denied us to include his software on our disk at the above conditions. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) (10/04/88)
In article <12410@oberon.USC.EDU> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <629@sas.UUCP> walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) writes: >>distribute software. Apparently, the authors chose not to allow commercial > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>distribution in order to protect themselves from exploitation, but if the > >This is not entirely correct. We (Felsina Software) got permission >to include the Zoo executable in our "A-Talk III installation" disk. OK, OK, I misspoked what I meant - or something. s/to allow commercial/to allow unrestricted commercial/