klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) (06/06/88)
Seems that the author of the MS-DOS version of ARC, and President of SEA has filed a "look & feel" law suit against the author of pkarc. I wonder what impact this will have on the Unix versions that are floating around, all of which are derived from the source code for ARC, which was released by SEA.
wnp@killer.UUCP (Wolf Paul) (06/07/88)
In article <733@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes: > > Seems that the author of the MS-DOS version of ARC, and > President of SEA has filed a "look & feel" law suit against the > author of pkarc. I wonder what impact this will have on the > Unix versions that are floating around, all of which are derived > from the source code for ARC, which was released by SEA. What are you basing this statement on? It seems to me that "look&feel" is not even remotely applicable, since unlike "arc", the pk* programs are two separate programs for archiving and extracting, thus certainly not the same "feel". And the only look to either arc or pk* is ascii text on the screen. If, on the other hand SEA claims a copyright or patent on the format of an *.arc file, then that raises all sorts of interesting questions: Can AT&T copyright the format of a *.tar or *.cpio file? If so, can you have such things as "PDTAR" and "AFIO", or the new C Users Group PDCPIO? Does anyone have more info on this? -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
sas@bcd-dyn.UUCP (432 2370.00) (06/08/88)
In article <5763@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: > > Are you sure about this? I would hate to see SEA accused of something > so slimey and repugnant if it weren't true. I hesitate to believe > that SEA would stoop to such an appallingly foul level as to sue > someone for putting out a superior product to compete with them. Did > they expect their archiving format to become a defacto standard that > only they could supply the program for? Surely they know that if they > won such a suit, users would simply desert the arc format for a freer > one. So as well as being loathsome and unethical, the lawsuit would > be stupid. > Actually, I believe that SEA's principals are serious about this. Having met Thom Henderson, I can say that my opinion of him is that this kind of action is right up his alley. It doesn't surprise me in the least, since he seems to think that ARC is unique, and that everyone else who clones ARC is just ripping him off, despite any added performance or new features they may have added to his implementation. -- =============================================================================== Scott A. Sharkey UUCP: cbosgd!osu-cis!bcd-dyn!sas Battelle Memorial Institute USPS: 505 King Ave., Columbus, OH 43201 (614) 424-4067 Who? Me? I Just work here!
brent@rtech.UUCP (Brent Williams) (06/09/88)
From article <5763@megaron.arizona.edu>, by gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman): > In article <733@hadron.UUCP> klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes: >> >> Seems that the author of the MS-DOS version of ARC, and >> President of SEA has filed a "look & feel" law suit against the >> author of pkarc. I wonder what impact this will have on the >> Unix versions that are floating around, all of which are derived >> from the source code for ARC, which was released by SEA. > > Are you sure about this? I would hate to see SEA accused of something > so slimey and repugnant if it weren't true. I hesitate to believe > that SEA would stoop to such an appallingly foul level as to sue > someone for putting out a superior product to compete with them. Did > they expect their archiving format to become a defacto standard that > only they could supply the program for? Surely they know that if they > won such a suit, users would simply desert the arc format for a freer > one. So as well as being loathsome and unethical, the lawsuit would > be stupid. > > Surely SEA is aware that there isn't anything original about arc. > It's a simple little program that would make a fairly easy project in > a software tools class. Let us hope that this is all simply a > misunderstanding, that in fact SEA is busily engaged in improving > their product rather than taking the destructive approach of causing > trouble for their competition. It was actually a copyright infringement on the source code, quite a different matter from look and feel of screens. Besides, if you've used arc, you're quite aware that there's no look and feel. Not one single pull-down menu or icon anywhere! :-) Personally, I don't blame SEA -- they put a fair amount of work into their code, they had the right idea at the right time, they released the source with all kinds of warnings about derivative works, etc. Then somebody comes along with a work that has some reasonable chance of being derivative (i.e., reads and writes .arc files compatibly) and makes tons of money off it. Wouldn't you be a little fried? I'd only be worried about a Unix port of ARC if I were selling it and making tons of dough. Also, even if the program does something incredibly pedestrian, the source code is still copyrightable. -- -brent williams Relational Technology, Inc. 1080 Marina Village Parkway {amdahl,sun,mtxinu,cpsc6a,hoptoad} Alameda, CA 94501 !rtech!brent (415)-769-1400
w8sdz@brl-smoke.ARPA (Keith B. Petersen ) (06/09/88)
I doubt if it's true that SEA has filed suit against Phil Katz. Phil
has just released PK36.EXE, a self-extracting file that contains PKARC,
PKXARC, PKSFX, documentation, etc. The time/date stamps on the files
are June 1, 1988. I got it direct from Phil's BBS last night.
I will be posting this to the moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc later
today.
--
Keith Petersen
Arpa: W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARPA
Uucp: {bellcore,decwrl,harvard,lll-crg,ucbvax,uw-beaver}!simtel20.arpa!w8sdz
GEnie: W8SDZbobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) (06/09/88)
In article <2150@rtech.UUCP> brent@rtech.UUCP (Brent Williams) writes: > >It was actually a copyright infringement on the source code, quite >a different matter from look and feel of screens. Besides, if you've This seems an unlikely claim to me. As I understand it, ARC was written in a bastardized C; and I thought the source was put into public domain when the various Unix /etc. ports came out. PKARC, meanwhile, was written in MASM. The performance differences surely suggest that there is different source code underneath the two! -- -bob,mon "In this position, the skier is flying in a complete stall..."
klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) (06/10/88)
There has finally been mention of a published reference to this
litigation that has been started by Thom Henderson of SEA.
There was an article on page 113 of the 31 May issue of PC-Week.
I have not yet seen the article, but will provide details when I
get them.
Kurt Reisler (703) 359-6100
============================================================================
UNISIG Chairman, DECUS US Chapter | Hadron, Inc.
..{uunet|sundc|rlgvax|netxcom|decuac}!hadron!klr | 9990 Lee Highway
Sysop, Fido 109/74 The Bear's Den (703) 671-0598 | Suite 481
Sysop, Fido 109/483 The Pot of Gold (703) 359-6549 | Fairfax, VA 22030
============================================================================root@cca.ucsf.edu (Computer Center) (06/11/88)
In article <735@hadron.UUCP>, klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) writes: > > There has finally been mention of a published reference to this > litigation that has been started by Thom Henderson of SEA. > There was an article on page 113 of the 31 May issue of PC-Week. > I have not yet seen the article, but will provide details when I > get them. The article states that the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in Milwaukee. In the suit SEA is claiming PKWare copied one of its programs in two of their products. SEA is claiming that the names PKARC and PKXARC violate their trademark on the name ARC and their claimed copyright on the product's appearance and user interface. The article further mentions that PKWare is a four employee company which operates out of Philip Katz's home. Clearly the suit is intended for harassment based on the small size of the PKWare operation. I guess it's time to boycott SEA. Thos Sumner (thos@cca.ucsf.edu) BITNET: thos@ucsfcca (The I.G.) (...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos) OS|2 -- an Operating System for puppets. #include <disclaimer.std>
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (06/11/88)
In article <2150@rtech.UUCP> brent@rtech.UUCP (Brent Williams) writes: > Seems that the author of the MS-DOS version of ARC, and > President of SEA has filed a "look & feel" law suit against the > author of pkarc. I wonder what impact this will have on the > Unix versions that are floating around, all of which are derived > from the source code for ARC, which was released by SEA. Sounds like a lawsuit that will go nowhere fast. As I understand it, S.E.A.'s ARC was based upon the published (and copyrighted, AT&T) source for the Lempel-Ziv compression algorithm so if anybody should be firing off complaints it shouldn't be S.E.A. Phil Katz at least improved upon the algorithm. Sounds like a nuisance lawsuit to me and, frankly, I'm surprised to hear about it since PKARC has been out and about for a few years now. Anyone know EXACTLY what the complaint is? -- +----- + Steve Manes + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + SmartMail: manes@magpie.MASA.COM
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (06/11/88)
In article <1024@bcd-dyn.UUCP> sas@bcd-dyn.UUCP (432 2370.00) writes: >In article <5763@megaron.arizona.edu>, gudeman@arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes: >Actually, I believe that SEA's principals are serious about this. Having met >Thom Henderson, I can say that my opinion of him is that this kind of action >is right up his alley. It doesn't surprise me in the least, since he seems >to think that ARC is unique, and that everyone else who clones ARC is just >ripping him off, despite any added performance or new features they may have >added to his implementation. Which is exactly why this lawsuit seems so bizarre to me. I've worked with Thom and found him very gracious and friendly. He spent a couple of weeks helping me on an abortive effort to get SEAdog installed in Magpie. I also ran a large dedicated discussion on file archivers on my BBS and had all these guys (Thom, Phil, Rahul and Dean Cooper, with a Vern Buerg lurking) calling in regularly, often nightly. I always got the impression from Thom that he didn't take ARC very seriously, except insofar as he was the first to produce a popular file compressor for micros. He and Phil never crossed words on the compression method, which after all, neither of them developed. The only contention seemed to be PKARC's use of the .ARC extension for Squashed files that wouldn't uncompress under S.E.A.'s ARC. And I agree with that complaint. Phil should have used something like .PKA for Squashed files to avoid confusing everyone. -- +----- + Steve Manes + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + SmartMail: manes@magpie.MASA.COM
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (06/11/88)
IN article <733@hadron.UUCP>, klr@hadron.UUCP (Kurt L. Reisler) wrote: > Seems that the author of the MS-DOS version of ARC, and > President of SEA has filed a "look & feel" law suit against the > author of pkarc. I wonder what impact this will have on the > Unix versions that are floating around, all of which are derived > from the source code for ARC, which was released by SEA. I have my doubts. PKXARC doesn't feel like ARC: it isn't as sluggish. PKXARC does look like ARC though, as a casual user of ARC could walk up to a screen with the tail end of a "PKARC -v file.arc" display and not realize it isn't ARC. The legal precedent is not established yet, so it's not clear if it's "look and feel" or "look or feel". An Achilles' heel to SEA's claims is that fact that SEA did not write a major portion of the ARC code: the Lempel Ziv compressor. That code was lifted straight out of the unix compress.c, with one change being that the original author's names were stripped (Welch's name was left in). The fact that Henderson is trying to profit from work others placed in the public domain does not lend him much credibility for pursuing PKXARC. PS. I do think anyone using Henderson's source for a unix ARC is standing on quicksand. Why anyone would want a unix ARC when tar & compress are available is beyond me.-- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (06/12/88)
In article <1283@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>, root@cca.ucsf.edu (Computer Center) writes: }SEA is claiming that the names PKARC and PKXARC violate their trademark }on the name ARC and their claimed copyright on the product's appearance }and user interface. What's next--SEA filing against Rahul because ZOO is a single program to create/extract archives and puts commandline arguments in the same order as ARC does? Copyrighting ARC's "user interface" is ridiculous, due to the small number of possibilities on a command line. Besides, Un*x "ar" had that commandline format first :-) -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I | claimed something?| Insert your favorite quote here
bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/13/88)
In article <2150@rtech.UUCP> brent@rtech.UUCP (Brent Williams) writes: >Personally, I don't blame SEA -- they put a fair amount of work into >their code, they had the right idea at the right time, they released the >source with all kinds of warnings about derivative works, etc. Then >somebody comes along with a work that has some reasonable chance of being >derivative (i.e., reads and writes .arc files compatibly) and makes tons >of money off it. Wouldn't you be a little fried? I'd only be worried >about a Unix port of ARC if I were selling it and making tons of dough. Don't I recall that SEA stated maybe a year or so ago that they weren't going to enhance the ARC product any further? As I recall (my DOS memories are getting stale these days), SEA wasn't overly serious about the product anyway, as evidenced by the cessation of activity, even with the existence of a lively user base. -bc -- Bill Crews bc@halley.UUCP (512) 244-8350 ..!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!halley!bc
jans@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) (06/15/88)
<<SEA is claiming that the names PKARC and PKXARC violate their trademark on
the name ARC...>>
<What's next--SEA filing against Rahul because ZOO is...>
Latest rumor: spurred by SEA's arguments, IBM today filed suit against
ButtonWare, claiming that the names PCFILE, PCTHIS, PCTHAT violate their
trademark on the name PC. In a similar action, Sperry has filed suit against
everyone, claiming the term "computer" can only be used when describing one of
their Univac series machines...
If it weren't costing me (a consumer of computer, er, ah, digital processing
equipment) money, it'd be almost entertaining. ("The next step is to shoot all
the lawyers.")
:::::: Software Productivity Technologies -- Experiment Manager Project ::::::
:::::: Jan Steinman N7JDB Box 500, MS 50-383 (w)503/627-5881 ::::::
:::::: jans@tekcrl.TEK.COM Beaverton, OR 97077 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (06/15/88)
In article <3578@tekgvs.TEK.COM>, jans@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) writes: } ("The next step is to shoot all }the lawyers.") Hear, hear. The US, with <6% of the world's population, has ~2/3 of the world's lawyers. -- UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school) ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31 Disclaimer? I | claimed something?| Insert your favorite quote here
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/15/88)
In article <3578@tekgvs.TEK.COM> jans@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) writes:
+<<SEA is claiming that the names PKARC and PKXARC violate their trademark on
+the name ARC...>>
+
+<What's next--SEA filing against Rahul because ZOO is...>
+
+Latest rumor: spurred by SEA's arguments, IBM today filed suit against
+ButtonWare, claiming that the names PCFILE, PCTHIS, PCTHAT violate their
+trademark on the name PC. In a similar action, Sperry has filed suit against
+everyone, claiming the term "computer" can only be used when describing one of
+their Univac series machines...
+
+If it weren't costing me (a consumer of computer, er, ah, digital processing
^
+equipment) money, it'd be almost entertaining. ("The next step is to shoot all
^^^^^^^^^
+the lawyers.")
Careful - you may be abusing DEC's trademark :-) ...
--
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101
UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882
DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UDjohn@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (06/16/88)
In article <3578@tekgvs.TEK.COM>, jans@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Jan Steinman) writes: >{SEA is claiming that the names PKARC and PKXARC violate their trademark on >the name ARC...}...<What's next--SEA filing against Rahul because ZOO is...> >Latest rumor: spurred by SEA's arguments, IBM today filed suit against >ButtonWare, claiming that the names PCFILE, PCTHIS, PCTHAT violate their >trademark on the name PC. In a similar action, Sperry has filed suit against >everyone, claiming the term "computer" can only be used when describing one >of their Univac series machines... > Hey, maybe the Apple suit could be ended by IBM filing suit for infringement on the "look and feel" of industry-crushing lawsuits (thus pleasing all of the PC owners who got a 10% tradein allowance on their soul when they bought IBM). -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Guns don't kill people; I kill people.
pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (06/17/88)
bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) wrote: > As I understand it, ARC was written in a bastardized C; If you mean that the code was poorly written, then your right. > and I thought the source was put into public domain when > the various Unix /etc. ports came out. It was never put into the public domain. The unix ports I have seen were taken from the source that Thom sold as a seperate item from the ARC binaries. As soon as the source became available, people ported it over to UNIX. -- ======================================================================= | ...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar | | >fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406 | | ...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904 | | USNail: KKSF 77 Maiden Lane San Francisco CA 94108 | =======================================================================
pavlov@hscfvax.harvard.edu (G.Pavlov) (06/17/88)
In article <22b663e3@ralf>, Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Hear, hear. The US, with <6% of the world's population, has ~2/3 of the > world's lawyers. > -- - yes, but in a lot of places in this world, there isn't much call for law- yers, period..... (yes, I know, this doesn't belong here) greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (06/18/88)
In article <4740@hoptoad.uucp> pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) writes:
%bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante) wrote:
%> As I understand it, ARC was written in a bastardized C;
% If you mean that the code was poorly written, then your
% right.
Hear, hear. But what the hell, it works.
%
%> and I thought the source was put into public domain when
%> the various Unix /etc. ports came out.
% It was never put into the public domain. The unix ports I
% have seen were taken from the source that Thom sold as a
% seperate item from the ARC binaries. As soon as the source
% became available, people ported it over to UNIX.
Are you absolutely certain that Thom was *selling* the source
code? I also thought the source was public domain. If not, then
Keith Peterson @ Simtel, as well as many other people, have a
few files to clean off their systems... It would seem that SEA
would've tried to put a stop to the source code distribution,
long long ago, if it was not public domain.
This raises some interesting questions for me, since I've been
sitting on the sources for ARC 5.21 for Unix for a couple weeks
now. Can I submit them to one of the sources groups? Will they
get posted? Should they be posted? Would someone get in trouble
because they were posted? Would that someone be me? ( }-) )
--
/
/_ , ,_. Howard Chu
/ /(_/(__ University of Michigan
/ Computing Center College of LS&A
' Unix Project Information Systemssas@bcd-dyn.UUCP (432 2370.00) (06/20/88)
In article <4740@hoptoad.uucp>, pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) writes: > > and I thought the source was put into public domain when > > the various Unix /etc. ports came out. > It was never put into the public domain. The unix ports I > have seen were taken from the source that Thom sold as a > seperate item from the ARC binaries. As soon as the source > became available, people ported it over to UNIX. > Not entirely true. I downloaded the complete sources to Thom's version of ARC from his bulletin board a number of times in the past few years, before ARC really caught on big. It was regularly one version behind the "latest and greatest", but you could get it for the price of a phone call. I have no idea whether the UNIX versions were ported from one of these, however. -- =============================================================================== Scott A. Sharkey UUCP: cbosgd!osu-cis!bcd-dyn!sas Battelle Memorial Institute USPS: 505 King Ave., Columbus, OH 43201 (614) 424-4067 Who? Me? I Just work here!
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (06/20/88)
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) wrote: > I have my doubts. PKXARC doesn't feel like ARC: it isn't as sluggish. The ARC source code will show you why arc is so sluggish -- it does everything in temp files. It wasn't designed to be fast; probably it was designed to run on even the most brain-damaged 64K IBM PC. > The fact that Henderson is trying to profit from work others placed in the > public domain does not lend him much credibility for pursuing PKXARC. Thom Henderson does NOT profit from work that others placed in the public domain (explained below) -- but what if he did? The essense of public domain is that anyone can do anything with it. If you wrote some code and you didn't want this to happen, better not make it PD. I made my PD tar public domain because I *want* people to use it commercially. On the other hand, gnuucp is GNU-copyrighted, because I care a lot more about its sources staying free than I do about whether it is used commercially. (Commercial use of GNU software is permitted, but some businesses don't like giving out their sources, so GNU copyright tends to cut the commercial potential.) SEA does not charge for ARC; it is distributed as shareware. If you want a supported version, you can pay them for that -- but you are paying for the support, which the authors of compress.c are definitely NOT providing for him! > PS. I do think anyone using Henderson's source for a unix ARC is standing on > quicksand. Why anyone would want a unix ARC when tar & compress are > available is beyond me.-- I asked Thom about this while on the phone with him last week. He said that the difference between the PKARC situation and the Unix ARC situation is that he has given us permission to distribute Unix ARC. In fact, his position on ports of ARC to other operating systems is that it's OK to do so for noncommercial use as long as you upload a copy to his BBS. Why you would want a Unix ARC is to create and extract ARC files for MSDOS or other micros. ARC sucks as a Unix medium -- it munges all the file names, it's slow, etc. Howard Chu has merged all known Unix ARC's and the result will be posted to comp.sources.unix real soon now. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com "And if there's danger don't you try to overlook it, Because you knew the job was dangerous when you took it"
manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) (07/04/88)
In article <373@clio.math.lsa.umich.edu> hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: >Are you absolutely certain that Thom was *selling* the source >code? I also thought the source was public domain. No, Thom Henderson released the ARC source as a copyrighted (not public domain) work for no charge. However, even though the source is available on practically any decent BBS download board it doesn't diminish SEA's rights to the source. As I understand it, SEA doesn't wish to have this source in distribution anymore. I was told that SEA even demanded Compuserve to remove it from its libraries, which has been done, under protest from many users. It may be that this was on the advice of SEA's attornies in order to show the court that SEA had made an attempt to protect its rights to the property. I spoke with Thom this week. Although he didn't offer much insight into the suit, and I didn't push him, he said that the case revolves around SEA offering a Phil a license to use its property for "derivative works" and Phil refusing it. I know from an earlier conference on file archivers that Thom was peeved that his source had been used by other archive authors as a framework to develop other Shareware archive programs without those authors sharing in the wealth (or even giving him credit) and especially annoyed that Phil maintained the .ARC extension when PKARC began using an incompatible file format with SEA's ARC, which slowly killed ARC in the DOS world. Of course, PKARC's superior performance had a lot to do with it too. This raises some interesting questions for me, since I've been >sitting on the sources for ARC 5.21 for Unix for a couple weeks >now. Can I submit them to one of the sources groups? Probably not a good idea now. I know that both parties are auditing this newsgroup but probably won't respond publicly. -- +----- + Steve Manes + decvax!philabs!cmcl2!hombre!magpie!manes Magpie BBS: 212-420-0527 + SmartMail: manes@magpie.MASA.COM
gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) (07/05/88)
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) writes: > ...I've been > sitting on the sources for ARC 5.21 for Unix for a couple weeks > now. Can I submit them to one of the sources groups? manes@dasys1.UUCP (Steve Manes) wrote: > Probably not a good idea now. Not true. I spoke with Thom Henderson by phone before Howard and Rich $alz released the sources, and he gave us permission. I just uploaded the posted sources from comp.sources.unix to Thom's BBS system, as he requested, so we are in full compliance with Thom's conditions. You are free to keep and use and improve Unix arc as a noncommercial program. During the phone call I even asked him "What's the difference between us and Phil Katz?"; his response was simplicity itself: "You have permission from me to distribute it!" (Also, Katz' PKARC is a commercial product and it runs on MSDOS, which is a market SEA cares to support and compete in.) There's a good article in this week's FidoNews on page 13, "SEA vs PKWare -- What's It About?" by Ben Baker. If you use readnews or vnews, type "p" to get to the FidoNews digest, then go forward to page 13. -- John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com "And if there's danger don't you try to overlook it, Because you knew the job was dangerous when you took it"