walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) (11/11/86)
In article <1264@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > John Toebes is > upset that The Public Domain Software Connection is selling "his" version > of Hack, which he posted to the net for worldwide distribution, for $9, > which includes a $7 floppy disk.] If you are paying $7 for 3 1/2" DSDD disks, I have a bunch I can let you have. I just paid $1.39 each for a batch of Maxell DSDD 3 1/2" diskettes mail order. > If you make something that is in the public domain (as legally defined), > this means that you relinquish ownership and give ownership to "the public". > Anyone can do anything with public domain stuff, including gulling people > into paying money for things that they can get for free. True, but 1) Hack was NOT placed in the public domain, and 2) it is STILL UNETHICAL TO DO IT, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS LEGAL. > If you want to make money at software, don't give it away for free! > If you give it away for free, don't complain if people copy it for fees, > sell it, or even (gasp!) fix bugs and offer support to customers who buy it. BULLSH*T. If I give it away for free but retain the copyright, I see no need to refrain from complaining about people who take advantage of my work and the gullibility of consumers to make a fast buck. > I presume that if The Public Domain > Connection really wanted to make a product out of it, they could rewrite > that one file; it's only about 2K of source. (Referring to hack.graphics.c) 1) The point is, they DIDN'T rewrite the file. John's work is being used. 2) I'd like to see them make graphics hack work (or even text hack) by rewriting that one file. Ha Ha. A *lot* of work went into that program by an extremely able programmer, with help from several others. > In summary, John has a copyright on a small bit of the code. He wants > to use this as leverage to control whether a company (which sounds like > a one man operation) can distribute the whole piece of publicly > available software, to people who aren't lucky enough to be on Usenet > and don't want to pay for Compuserve or don't belong to a user's > group. Or who don't read AmigaWorld, where it was clearly stated that John is the author and how to get it for $6. Since AmigaWorld is the publication that ran the Public Domain Connection's ad, they are not reaching a different audience at all! > He doesn't want to sell it himself, he doesn't mind "friends" > selling it, but he minds "random people" selling it, or he is unwilling > for it to be sold for $9 to the same people who could get it for $8 > from his friends. Now THIS really pisses me off. NOBODY is making money on Hack on the 'normal' distribution channels, so back off when you say 'friends' are SELLING it. We distribute it for $6, NOT $8, which is enough to pay for a disk, postage, mailers, phone calls to Lattice for bug reports and fixes, Federal Express charges for sending disks to them with programs that illustrate a bug, printer paper, wear and tear on disk drives and so forth. Besides which, PD Connection sells Hack 1.01E (graphics version) on one disk for $9 and Hack 1.01A (text version) on a different disk for $9 MORE, whereas we ship BOTH on one disk. In addition, I believe they charge extra for shipping. > He neglects to mention in his flame that 99% of the > work was done by other people, who freely gave their efforts to him and > everyone else. He has a slight legal leg to stand on, but personally I > think is confused about what he wants and should think about it before > he flames again, or ports any other software around. I think his > statement "It is people like this that are working to destroy what > freeware/shareware/public domain is all about" applies more to himself > than to The Public Domain Connection. If the PD connection wanted to ship 1.01 Hack unmodified, or perform the port themselves, FINE. But surely you agree that if any work done by John or the Software Distillery is being distributed, then he (we) should have a say in it since it is copyrighted. > > I currently scan > net.wanted.sources and help people out for free. But if I really tried > to recover my costs, I'd charge a lot more then $2 plus media cost! Actually, more like $15.00 plus media cost. > If you are really interested in a well thought out rationale for "why I > am putting this software into the world" and a set of conditions that > match, see the GNU Manifesto and GNU copying rules. You don't have to > agree with Richard Stallman to appreciate that he knows what he is doing > and why he is doing it -- and how to get there. I can send you a copy > if you want one. I am definately interested in a copy. I think helping people out for free is a great idea, which is why I write Freely Redistributable software for the Software Distillery. However, I feel that if I, the author, don't receive any remuneration, no one should.
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (11/11/86)
> From: ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) > The GNU system is protected by a copyright stipulation > which explicitly states that you are *NOT* allowed to make money selling GNU > or a derivative work... This is not true. Read the license. There are no provisions that say anything about what you charge for GNU Emacs except that if you distribute binaries, you must make the source available for only a copying charge BEYOND WHAT YOU CHARGE FOR THE BINARIES. I have specifically talked to Richard about this, and it's true. If you want to sell GNU Emacs for $5000 to people too dumb to buy it from the Free Software Foundation, you're welcome to, according to the license. In fact, you can sell it for $100 which undercuts what the FSF charges for distribution, if you want. What Richard really cares about is that everyone who gets it (at any price) gets the source and the right to give it away. Richard is not out to end the making of profit, he's out to end the hoarding of software. > From: mjwingrove@wateng.UUCP (Mike Wingrove) > > "The copyright would still be valid > even on a piece of freely distibutable software." ... > This means that if someone wants to copy a PD program, unless it contains > a notice saying that anyone can copy it, then, theoretically, it would still > be necessary to get the author's permission. ... > Another way of stating this is that as well as a copyright notice, PD software > should list the allowable terms of distribution, in addition to a copyright > notice. Otherwise nobody is really alowed to copy/distribute it legally. The above message mixes up copyrighted software and public domain software. The two are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, that means it can only be one or the other. Copyrighted software is OWNED by somebody. Public domain software is owned by the public (i.e. Nobody). Somebody who OWNS a program can allow people to copy it for free and can control the circumstances under which this permission is given. If the program is owned by the public (PD) then there are NO restrictions. PD software does not require anybody's permission. How To Tell The Difference: ==> Is there a copyright notice in the software? No. ==> Is there a notice that says it is "public domain"? Yes: It is public domain software. No: ==> Has the software been publicly distributed (published)? Yes: it is effectively public domain. When the author wrote it, s/he owned a copyright on it even though no copyright notice was in it, but the act of "publishing" it without such a notice basically renders their copyright unenforceable. They still technically own it, but nobody can be expected to know that, since they didn't claim ownership, so the courts rule that they have made it public domain. No: It is privately owned. Recent US copyright law makes things copyright even if there is no notice in them, as long as they have been kept private and not published. Yes: The presence of a copyright notice in a piece of software makes it likely that the software is not public domain, but is owned by someone and controlled by that someone. Now, anyone can insert a copyright notice into anything, so there are ways to challenge this; and a copyright can be "abandoned" by the owner, which explicitly puts the work into the public domain. But in the absence of specific knowledge that the copyright is invalid or abandoned, you must assume the software is somebody's property and can be controlled by them. I'll keep posting this distinction until you-all figure it out. It will be easier on all of us if you figure it out soon. > From: glee@cognos.UUCP (Godfrey Lee) > Message-ID: <263@cognos.UUCP> > > The only long term solution is probably to establish a distributor for > the free software, with the proper spirit (no profit - or as Fred Fish > puts it: low profit), and compete openly. This is what The Public Domain Software Connection was trying to do: become a distributor for the free software, with low profit, competing openly. What they got was a load of flames. (I think $9 for a disk, or $18 for 2 disks, is low profit. If you don't think so, why don't YOU start a business publishing PD software and undercut them? Hmm, not worth your effort, eh?) > From: hull@hao.UUCP (Howard Hull) > > I don't understand the upset. > > I do. I even have a way to make sure that you will, too. I'll just go > through all my USENET tapes until I find something YOU wrote, add a bunch > of really great code, complete with whatever bugs just come naturally, and > then I'll make sure I don't delete YOUR telephone number from it. Of course, > I'll also make sure that it doesn't have mine... I have written a bunch of stuff that I give away. I don't think any of it has my phone number in it. Neither did John Toebes' stuff, as far as I know. It *did* print "Hack version XXX, ported to the Amiga by John Toebes" when you start it up, but he put that in because he wanted people to remember his name. I can't fault the redistributors for leaving it in -- if they took it out he'd scream that he wasn't getting credit for the work! If you want to answer questions from people that get your software, put your contact info into it. If you don't, leave it out. HOW they got your software is not your problem, since you gave it away. If a lot more people end up wanting your help than you expected, well, you made the wrong decision, but it at least shows you that your software has made it to a lot of people, which is presumably what you wanted. This is not a unique problem. If you really want to get somebody, don't stick their phone # into some PD software -- stick it into one of the big lists of BBS systems. I ran a BBS system in 1980 or so and eventually shut it down. I got 5 or 10 calls a day for the next 2 years! > From: net@uwmacc.UUCP (jeff kesselman) > Message-ID: <483@uwmacc.UUCP> > Could we prevail upon someone from FSF to post thier statement, in fill in the > blank form, to save the rest of us the research time of designing one, > and the expense of having a lawyer then double check it...? My offer to mail out copies of the GNU Emacs General Public License and the GNU Manifesto is still good. So far I've only gotten about 5 requests, so it's not worth posting. > I thought just occurred to me. There are a number of national freelance > writer's organizations (as I've mentioned before) that exist primarily to > protect their members from unscrupulous publishers and the like. Wouldn't > it make sense to form such an association of freelance software authors/ > PD software authors either as a seperate organization or as a sub-organization > of one of these? Actually, forming such a guild might not be any more > difficult than creating a new news group. Any thoughts? (1) Creating a new news group is getting tough these days. (2) The GNU project is doing your idea one better. They are working to protect you against commercial software ripoffs -- like $60K for Unix source. It has become worth the computing community's time to rewrite such things in the public domain, because it lets all the little folks see the stuff, run it, and improve it themselves. If you want to help, contact the Free Software Foundation at 1000 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02138, or call +1 617 876 3296, or send mail to rms@prep.ai.mit.edu. IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Though my login account is "gnu", I am not offically affiliated with the GNU project or the Free Software Foundation. It really is a coincidence. I have contributed some software and some work to the GNU project but I am not its sponsor or a paid worker for it. -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu jgilmore@lll-crg.arpa "I can't think of a better way for the War Dept to spend money than to subsidize the education of teenage system hackers by creating the Arpanet."
vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) (11/11/86)
In article <1280@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >> From: ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) >> The GNU system is protected by a copyright stipulation Hey, what does "GNU" stand for? There is an awful lot of talk about it without any mention of what it is. I guess I could call or write to that agency you mentioned in your posting, but I don't want to spend the money on the call and the email address didn't look legal for me. I just think it would be nice if whenever someone mentions an acronym (I take it that's what GNU is), and it hasn't been explained in over a month or so, that it be explained again. Not just acronyms, but any relatively new words (zorro is another example). I don't mean a detailed explanation. A single sentence or something in parenthesis would do quite nicely. (zorro is Amiga's expansion specification) Thanks, Marnix ... (<- *not* related to Unix !) -- Marnix A. van\ Ammers Work: (415) 545-8334 Home: (707) 644-9781 CEO: MAVANAMMERS:UNIX {ihnp4|ptsfa}!pttesac!vanam CIS: 70027,70
ccplumb@watnot.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (11/11/86)
In article <329@pttesac.UUCP> vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) writes: >Hey, what does "GNU" stand for? GNU (the 'G' is pronounced) is a recursive acronym meaning GNU's Not Unix (as the other 19 postings responding to this will undoubtedly also tell you. *sigh*) -Colin Plumb Zippy says: (courtesy of M-x yow in GNUemacs) Were these parsnips CORRECTLY MARINATED in TACO SAUCE?