peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (02/05/88)
I wrote one shareware program. It was a terminal program called "Smart TTY", for the PC. It supported simultaneous file transfers or interactive sessions on both serial ports. It never blocked I/O to the screen, so you could see *what* the weird garbage you got from your port was (like "File Transfer Aborted" or "You have 5 minutes left" :->)... anything that wasn't a packet was displayed. It wasn't a speed demon, because I used the BIOS for maximum portability, but it could handle 2 1200 baud lines at once through the use of crufty heuristics and careful screen updates (my early efforts in writing a curses wannabe back before Ken started letting other machines than Cory EECS 11/70 use it helped). Just Xmodem and Xmodem CRC, but good emulations of Vt100 and ADM22 terminals. Pull-down help screen and setup menus. Drag down screens (really! You could drag down session on COM1 and see what was going on on COM2). Intended as a tool for people calling up VAXen and their ilk from a PC. I asked $35 to get an update and remove the startup message that read: "Send $35 to stop me printing this obnoxious message and to get an updated version of this program" or something like that. I got 3 letters from people wanting me to add features before they'd send their $35, and one guy claiming he wanted a free copy for a review. Wouldn't say what his magazine was. Shareware, hah! -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
kudla@pawl15.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (02/06/88)
In article <622@nuchat.UUCP> peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >I wrote one shareware program. >....tells how wonderful it was... >I asked $35 to get an update and remove the startup message that read: > "Send $35 to stop me printing this obnoxious message and to > get an updated version of this program" >or something like that. >I got 3 letters from people wanting me to add features before they'd send >their $35, and one guy claiming he wanted a free copy for a review. Wouldn't >say what his magazine was. > >Shareware, hah! Well, let me put it this way. The way you worded the message was pretty poor, in my opinion; that would immediately cause me to (a) hack the message out of the program myself or (b) simply file the programme in the Circular File. Further, if this was over about a year ago, the best terminal emulators on the PC were PD or Shareware anyway- PCTalk comes to mind, though they've since gone commercial. But for you to bitch because the shareware system didn't work for you is pretty infantile. If the programme is good and professionally done, people DO support it (at least in the PC and Amiga world; it doesn't work on Commodore 8-bit machines and I can't speak for the other markets), assuming you promote/distribute it properly! Shareware to me is infinitely better than the commercial market because (1) the programme must sell itself and (2) only the good programmers make any money. Just for the record, I *have* released Shareware, and I have made money off it. Not much, because the programme was a C64 thing, and it was mediocre to begin with, but a good bit for a week and a half of programming. ------------Robert J. Kudla - Pseudo-Freshman Extraordinaire------------- Screw the disclaimers- flame at will!! Itt@RPITSMTS.BITNET And you may ask yourself- How do I work this? FU7Z%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu (I sure as hell do...) kudla@pawl.rpi.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------
tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) (02/13/88)
In article <622@nuchat.UUCP>, peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: > I wrote one shareware program. > It was a terminal program called "Smart TTY", for the PC. > I got 3 letters from people wanting me to add features before they'd send > their $35, and one guy claiming he wanted a free copy for a review. Wouldn't > say what his magazine was. And this was probably three quarters of the people who ever saw the program. There is one aspect of SHAREWARE people are ignoring. If your program isn't getting into the hands of the people who might want it then you are not going to get anything back from it. If you want your shareware to succeed, then send it to EVERY magazine software reviewer you can find, have heard of, or is even rumoured to exist. Upload it to GENIE, COMPUSERVE, etc. Call into bulletin boards across the country and upload it. Post it to usenet. When people make queries about applications it can fulfill take the initiative and send them a copy on appropriate medium. Find a system manufacturer and get them to distribute it with new system purchases. Go into book stores and stick free copies of your software into the magazines for the appropriate system. Get software and bookstore sellers of software to give your software away with other purchases, or just give it away as good will for people browsing in their stores. Yes a lot of these suggestions involve some cost. But the original shareware successes were never without cost to the producers either. If nothing else a shareware success has got to have some kind of support, and it has got to be obvious to the casual reviewer of the product that you do give this support. > -- a clone of Peter da Silva `-_-' --j.a.tainter
davidg@killer.UUCP (David Guntner) (02/17/88)
in article <4815@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) says: > > If you want your shareware to succeed, then send it to EVERY magazine software > reviewer you can find, have heard of, or is even rumoured to exist. Upload it > to GENIE, COMPUSERVE, etc. Call into bulletin boards across the country > and upload it. Post it to usenet. When people make queries about applications One note: Do NOT under any circumstance upload it to Compu$pend - I have heard that they have this weird idea that they hold the copywrite on ALL material that comes from their system, including things which users have uploaded! I have heard that they have hassled some BBS's which were carring programs that a user would download from CI$ & then upload to the BBS in question. If you want to avoid the hassle, avoid using Compu$pend. --Dave -- David Guntner UUCP: {ihnp4, codas}!killer!davidg INET: davidg@killer.UUCP "...Different ship, but she's got a good name. Treat --Admiral L. McCoy her like a lady, and she'll always bring you home." "Encounter at Farpoint"
peterson@mips.csc.ti.com (Bob Peterson) (02/17/88)
In article <3343@killer.UUCP> davidg@killer.UUCP (David Guntner) writes: >in article <4815@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) says: >> >> If you want your shareware to succeed, then send it to EVERY magazine software >> reviewer you can find, have heard of, or is even rumoured to exist. Upload it >> to GENIE, COMPUSERVE, etc. Call into bulletin boards across the country >> and upload it. Post it to usenet. When people make queries about applications > > >One note: Do NOT under any circumstance upload it to Compu$pend - I have heard >that they have this weird idea that they hold the copywrite on ALL material >that comes from their system, including things which users have uploaded! I >have heard that they have hassled some BBS's which were carring programs that >a user would download from CI$ & then upload to the BBS in question. If you >want to avoid the hassle, avoid using Compu$pend. > --Dave >David Guntner UUCP: {ihnp4, codas}!killer!davidg INET: davidg@killer.UUCP > You've heard wrong. Compuserve claims a compilation copyright, i.e., a copyright on their entire collection of material as a whole. They do not attempt to claim copyright ownership of individual items their customers place on the service. This is easily verified by reviewing Compuserve's online copyright documentation. They have, on occasion, contacted individuals offering on for-pay BBS's collections of files downloaded from Compuserve. On those occasions the individual was asked to remove files downloaded, since that specific activity is prohibited by the contract a user agrees to when signing up with Compuserve. On at least one occasion, such an incident was reported in the press in a distorted form. I'm not totally without an interest in this subject: I manage one of the Compuserve Forums. However, I'm speaking for myself, not as a representative of any other person or entity, especially Compuerve or my employer. Hardcopy and Electronic Addresses: Office: Bob Peterson Compuserve: 76703,532 NB 2nd Floor CSC Aisle C3 P.O. Box 1686 Usenet: peterson@csc.ti.com Plano, Tx USA 75074 (214) 995-6080 (work) or (214) 596-3720 (ans. machine)
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (02/18/88)
In article <3343@killer.UUCP> davidg@killer.UUCP (David Guntner) writes: >One note: Do NOT under any circumstance upload it to Compu$pend - I have heard >that they have this weird idea that they hold the copywrite on ALL material >that comes from their system, including things which users have uploaded! I remember when this was being discussed last year, and I think you are overreacting. Compuserve claims what is known as a "compilation copyright". They don't copyright any individual item, but they copyright the collection as a whole. This is analogous to an anthology of short stories that have been previously published separately -- the stories are still copyright to the original publishers, but no one else can publish that particular collection of stories. In general, I think this also covers very similar collections (i.e. you wouldn't be able to get around the copyright by making a new collection that has all but one of the original stories). So, what Compuserve doesn't allow is for someone else to download a large portion of their library and then make this available to others. For example, a user group can't just download the entire Compuserve library and make enough copies for all the members. It's easy to see why they would be against this: a significant portion of Compuserve's revenue comes from people being online to download files; if one person does the downloading and then gives away copies for the price of the media then Compuserve is losing revenue. If Compuserve thinks they hold the copyright on any contributed material they are wrong. As soon as you write something you hold the copyright on it, until you do something that causes you to lose it (such as selling the copyright to a publisher, or placing it in the public domain). If you are smart enough to put an explicit copyright notice in the text then it would be difficult for anyone else to succeed in claiming the copyright. [P.S. Why do so many people have much trouble spelling copyright? The definition of "copyright" is "the right to copy", so why do people think that the spelling changes when you combine it into one word? One day one of you is going to get screwed when a misspelled copyright notice fails to hold up in court (actually, I think it pretty unlikely that a court would be so picky).] Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com uunet!think!barmar
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/18/88)
In article <3343@killer.UUCP> davidg@killer.UUCP (David Guntner) writes: >in article <4815@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) says: >> >> If you want your shareware to succeed, then send it to EVERY magazine software >> reviewer you can find, have heard of, or is even rumoured to exist. Upload it >> to GENIE, COMPUSERVE, etc. Call into bulletin boards across the country >> and upload it. Post it to usenet. When people make queries about applications > > >One note: Do NOT under any circumstance upload it to Compu$pend - I have heard >that they have this weird idea that they hold the copywrite on ALL material >that comes from their system, including things which users have uploaded! I >have heard that they have hassled some BBS's which were carring programs that >a user would download from CI$ & then upload to the BBS in question. If you >want to avoid the hassle, avoid using Compu$pend. > --Dave > > Wrong. If you upload a properly copyrighted file to compufuck they cannot usurp your copyright by imposing their own. If you upload a file there without a copyright notice, they will indeed copyright it, and they are with their legal rights. This article (c) 1988 by Richard J. Sexton This article copyrighted by Richard J. Sexton This article Copyrighted (c) 1988 by Richard J. Sexton None of these are valid copyrights. Copyright 1988 by Richard J. Sexton. Ahh! Now this article is copyrighted. -- "My life is changing in so many ways, I don't know who to trust any more" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (02/19/88)
In article <42540@ti-csl.CSNET> peterson@mips.UUCP (Bob Peterson) writes: > They have, on occasion, contacted individuals offering on for-pay >BBS's collections of files downloaded from Compuserve. On those >occasions the individual was asked to remove files downloaded, since >that specific activity is prohibited by the contract a user agrees to >when signing up with Compuserve. As I remember it, the CompuServe contract says that since stuff on CompuServe belongs to others, one may not download it for commercial purposes. The emphasis is on protecting the rights of the owner of the files which, as Bob Peterson says in his article, is not CompuServe. This implies that so long as the owner of the downloaded files doesn't object, one can do anything one wants with the downloaded software. There is simply no merit in the claim that CompuServe can get a compilation copyright for material that is already copyrighted without getting explicit permission from each copyright holder. It is *illegal* to create a compilation of copyrighted material for commercial purposes without explicit permission from the copyright holder of each item included in the compilation. CompuServe is on record as claiming that if you download software from its forums and give it away to others, you are stealing somebody else's work. Since essentially all downloadable software is shareware or public domain, one can see that this is an absurd and self-serving claim made solely to fool the public. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) (02/19/88)
In article <2608@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Copyright 1988 by Richard J. Sexton. > >Ahh! Now this article is copyrighted. And it's always wise to include "All Rights Reserved". -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." ...!cmcl2!esquire!sbb | - David Letterman
stew@endor.harvard.edu (Stew Rubenstein) (02/19/88)
In article <3343@killer.UUCP> davidg@killer.UUCP (David Guntner) writes: >One note: Do NOT under any circumstance upload it to Compu$pend - I have heard >that they have this weird idea that they hold the copywrite on ALL material >that comes from their system, including things which users have uploaded! I >have heard that they have hassled some BBS's which were carring programs that >a user would download from CI$ & then upload to the BBS in question. If you >want to avoid the hassle, avoid using Compu$pend. > --Dave You have heard wrong. CompuServe holds a copyright on the collection, not on individual programs. This means you can't download the whole library and advertise as an alternative to CompuServe, but there's they place no restriction on redistributing individual programs. Get the facts before spreading this kind of message. Stew Rubenstein Cambridge Scientific Computing, Inc. UUCPnet: seismo!harvard!rubenstein CompuServe: 76525,421 Internet: rubenstein@harvard.harvard.edu MCIMail: CSC
lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP (Larry Phillips) (02/19/88)
In <3343@killer.UUCP>, davidg@killer.UUCP (David Guntner), writes: > .....- I have heard ^^^^^^^^^^^^ You 'heard' wrong. >that they have this weird idea that they hold the copywrite on ALL material >that comes from their system, including things which users have uploaded! Compuserve's full policy on copyright of uploads is available for anyone to read by typing GO COPYRIGHT at any '!' prompt on CIS. If you don't know what it says, I suggest you go read the bloody thing instead of making statements that prove beyond a doubt that you don't know what you are talking about. > I have heard There it is again. If you don't know first hand, why not find out? > that they have hassled some BBS's which were carring programs that >a user would download from CI$ & then upload to the BBS in question. If you >want to avoid the hassle, avoid using Compu$pend. There was a case recently 9within the past two years in which they came down hard on a BBS that had the complete Mac data library, was advertised as having the complete Mac data library, and in addition was a pay system. The library in question was duplicated right down to the file descriptions, date of upload, and so on. Yes, CIS claims 'compilation copyright'. If you don't know what this means, talk to a laeyer, and while you're at it, ask about liability in slander/libel cases. > --Dave Larry Phillips, Sysop, Amigaforum, CIS 76703,4322 -- The transistor is a curiosity, and will never amount to much. -- Mr. Stringer, Basic Electronic Instructor, RCAF, 1962. +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | // Larry Phillips UUCP: lphillips@lpami.van-bc.UUCP | | \X/ or: {ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision,uunet}!van-bc!lpami!lphillips | | COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (02/19/88)
In article <333@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >In article <2608@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>Copyright 1988 by Richard J. Sexton. >> >>Ahh! Now this article is copyrighted. > >And it's always wise to include "All Rights Reserved". But they wern't :-) -- "Each morning when I wake up to rise, I'm living in a dreamland" richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax, rutgers!marque, codas!ddsw1} gryphon!richard
schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein CATS) (02/19/88)
In article <2608@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > >Copyright 1988 by Richard J. Sexton. > > richard@gryphon.CTS.COM Thanx for the Copyright tip. As a sometimes writer I always enjoy tips like this one. BUT (come on - you knew it was comming) your choice of wording for the term CompuServ, could use a little net-adjustment next time. Of course this is my opinion and im sure you have yours. Guess thats why they dont have UseNet in the USSR :-) -- Dan Schein uucp: {ihnp4|allegra|burdvax|rutgers}!cbmvax!schein Commodore AMIGA ARPANET: cbmvax!schein@uunet.uu.net 1200 Wilson Drive Bix: dschein Plink: Dan*CATS West Chester PA 19380 phone: (215) 431-9100 ext. 9542 +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ All spelling mistakes are a result of my efforts to avoid education :-) +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I help Commodore by supporting the AMIGA. Commodore supports me by allowing me to form my own suggestions and comments.
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (02/20/88)
In article <2608@gryphon.CTS.COM>, richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > > This article (c) 1988 by Richard J. Sexton > This article copyrighted by Richard J. Sexton > This article Copyrighted (c) 1988 by Richard J. Sexton > None of these are valid copyrights. Inclusion of (c) symbol is satisfactory with a date and name. Middle one might not do, but other two certainly are legal copyright notices. Source : US form PA. > Copyright 1988 by Richard J. Sexton. > Ahh! Now this article is copyrighted. Also correct. >richard@gryphon.CTS.COM -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (02/20/88)
In article <1771@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) writes: >In article <2608@gryphon.CTS.COM>, richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >> >> This article (c) 1988 by Richard J. Sexton >> This article copyrighted by Richard J. Sexton >> This article Copyrighted (c) 1988 by Richard J. Sexton >> None of these are valid copyrights. > >Inclusion of (c) symbol is satisfactory with a date and name. >Middle one might not do, but other two certainly are legal copyright >notices. Source : US form PA. I think you may have old information. I'm pretty sure that last year "(c)" was declared invalid. Or, since you are quoting a US form, that maybe it is allowed in the US, but not internationally (since the US never signed the appropriate international copyright treaty, our rules differ). Internationally, only a "c" in a circle (and a pair of parentheses is NOT the same thing as a circle) and/or the word "copyright" can be used, and both of these are also valid in the US. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com uunet!think!barmar
allen@granite.dec.com (Allen Akin) (02/20/88)
In article <3343@killer.UUCP> davidg@killer.UUCP (David Guntner) writes: >One note: Do NOT under any circumstance upload it to Compu$pend - I have heard >that they have this weird idea that they hold the copywrite on ALL material >that comes from their system, including things which users have uploaded! Common misconception. Compu$erve holds an ``anthology copyright'' on their databases. This is intended to prevent other information services from downloading and reselling the databases in their entirety. Anthology copyright is common in the publishing industry. In no way does it restrict the author's rights to the original material. Allen
rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) (02/21/88)
AS this argument is now not specific to any computer, why not post to comp.misc so us poor souls who want to read about our computers are able to. ****************************************************************************** * Richard L. Carreiro GO CELTS! * "He gets it out deep and * * rlcarr@athena.mit.edu * HAVLICEK STEALS IT!!" - J. Most * ******************************************************************************
cs224065@brap0a94 (Nicholas Thompson) (02/21/88)
In article <333@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes: >In article <2608@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>Copyright 1988 by Richard J. Sexton. >> >>Ahh! Now this article is copyrighted. > >And it's always wise to include "All Rights Reserved". > Don't bet on it...as I recall from the booklet on corporate security they gave me when I first went to work, the only ABSOLUTE way to secure the copyright on the document is with the symbol-which-is- usually-approximated-by-(c). You know, the small letter c with the circle around it. The c with parentheses doesn't cut it, neither does "Copyright (c) 1988 by Nick Thompson. All Rights Reserved." Of course it doesn't hurt to put that in, and it will certainly give you some protection, but apparently the letter of the law says that you need the little symbol that isn't in the ASCII character set. So how do you protect your source code? Well, all the stuff mentioned above counts for something, I hope... If you want, I'll look this up and quote later. Nick Thompson Kallisti (k) 1988 - All Rites Reversed
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (02/22/88)
In article <22977@brunix.UUCP> cs224065@brap0a94.UUCP (Nicholas Thompson) writes: >Don't bet on it...as I recall from the booklet on corporate security >they gave me when I first went to work, the only ABSOLUTE way to >secure the copyright on the document is with the symbol-which-is- >usually-approximated-by-(c). You know, the small letter c with the >circle around it. The c with parentheses doesn't cut it, neither >does "Copyright (c) 1988 by Nick Thompson. All Rights Reserved." WRONG: Copyright or Copr. instead of the "c in a circle" is perfectly OK. If you don't know what you are talking about, why don't you shut up. -- Marco
kudla@pawl18.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (02/23/88)
In article <22977@brunix.UUCP> cs224065@brap0a94.UUCP (Nicholas Thompson) writes: >give you some protection, but apparently the letter of the law says >that you need the little symbol that isn't in the ASCII character >set. So how do you protect your source code? Well, all the stuff >mentioned above counts for something, I hope... How about _ (C) or something similar? - I've thought a lot about this, since CompuSuck was just instituting this barbaric policy just as I was getting sick of programming the C64. No, the (C) doesn't cut it, but the above symbol is a LITTLE better. Actually, having a bitmapped c-with-a-circle is about the only sure way to do it. But a copyright notice with "all rights reserved" certainly can't hurt! ------------Robert J. Kudla - Pseudo-Freshman Extraordinaire------------- Screw the disclaimers- flame at will!! Itt@RPITSMTS.BITNET And you may ask yourself- How do I work this? FU7Z%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu kudla@pawl.rpi.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------
cs178abu@sdcc8.ucsd.EDU (John Schultz) (02/23/88)
If anyone wants to know more about Copyrights and software law, publishing, etc, pick up a copy of "Legal Care For Your Software", available at most B. Dalton Booksellers. It's up to date and has everything you'll need. John
nj@ndmath.UUCP ( ~ ) (02/24/88)
In article <407@imagine.PAWL.RPI.EDU>, kudla@pawl18.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) writes: > In article <22977@brunix.UUCP> cs224065@brap0a94.UUCP (Nicholas Thompson) writes: > >give you some protection, but apparently the letter of the law says > >that you need the little symbol that isn't in the ASCII character > >set. So how do you protect your source code? Well, all the stuff > >mentioned above counts for something, I hope... > > Actually, having a bitmapped c-with-a-circle is about the only sure > way to do it. Since a computer can't draw a perfect circle, it wouldn't work. For that matter, humans can't draw a perfect circle, either. Therefore, all copyrights in books heretofore, containing "C" in an imperfect circle, are in fact invalid. Y'all excuse me while I go off and write _Gone With the Wind_.