chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll) (04/28/87)
In article <6013@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: >In an article, Webber writes: ><> Consider company X which sells a Un*x system & software. Can they include ><> code that contains the above restriction, free of charge? Or in order ><>words can one sell Un*x for $Y, and toss in such programs for free? >< >< HOPEFULLY NOT. If the software did not add value to their >< distribution, they wouldn't distribute it (tossing it in for free is >< not a meaningful concept). What is the difference between giving such software away on the USENET (by posting it or passing the article on to other sites), and giving such software away via tape assuming that the copyright notice and stuff remains the same? Nothing as far as I can see. Now place the software on a tape, along with a 'README' file saying "these files are provided free of charge as per their respective copytight notices", and give the tape to someone. Are things still ok? Yes. Now place the software on a tape, add the 'README' file, and give the tape to someone changing them a for the cost of the tape. Are things still ok? I presume so. Now place the software on a tape, and the 'README' file, and add on some additional software you intend to sell. Sell the tape to someone for the cost of the software + cost_of_tape. Are things still ok? I don't know... >The plan was eventually killed by Support. They felt that no matter >how many disclaimers that the software is not from Callan and not >supported by Callan, there would still be a lot of customers who >would call in and expect support. Good point, but I am talking about code which we have debugged and intend to support. chongo <> /\oo/\ -- [views above shouldn't be viewed as Amdahl views, or as views from Amdahl, or as Amdahl views views, or as views by Mr. Amdahl, or as views from his house]
webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (04/28/87)
In article <6394@amdahl.UUCP>, chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll) writes: > In article <6013@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes: > >In an article, Webber writes: [here chongo clipped reference to who wrote the original hypothetical as well as the text of the `above restriction'. The stuff I wrote starts with `HOPEFULLY NOT'.] > ><> Consider company X which sells a Un*x system & software. Can they include > ><> code that contains the above restriction, free of charge? Or in order > ><>words can one sell Un*x for $Y, and toss in such programs for free? > >< > >< HOPEFULLY NOT. If the software did not add value to their > >< distribution, they wouldn't distribute it (tossing it in for free is > >< not a meaningful concept). > > What is the difference between giving such software away on the USENET (by > posting it or passing the article on to other sites), and giving such software > away via tape assuming that the copyright notice and stuff remains the same? > Nothing as far as I can see. >... [various alternative senarios] You might want to consider the recent message on this board (comp.sources.d) by Mark Weiser (weiser@mimsy.umd.edu) which mentions the that the tape is available for non-commericial use only. This seems to be the key question. As soon as you attempt to benefit commercially from making the software available to someone, you are violating such restrictions. You might want to ask Weiser as to why they chose to restrict their software to non-commercial use only. However, regardless of whether or not you like it, that is what they have done. As to your various hypotheticals, you should, of course, consult a lawyer. However, I would think that you would have difficulty establishing that there was no commercial intent if the software was mixed on a tape with other clearly for-sale software. For that matter, I would think you would have trouble if you offered it on a separate tape that was restricted to being available only to your customers. ---------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)
mark@mimsy.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (04/28/87)
In article <199@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) writes: >You might want to consider the recent message on this board >(comp.sources.d) by Mark Weiser (weiser@mimsy.umd.edu) which mentions the >that the tape is available for non-commericial use only. >...You might want to ask Weiser as to why >they chose to restrict their software to non-commercial use only. I did not mention this in my other posting, but we have actually made deals for commercial use of the software. In each case, the company wrote or called, said "how can we get out of this 'no commercial use'" restriction", and some sort of licensing arrangement was made (usually a small (~ $20) fee per copy redistributed, proceeds to be returned to the same useful case back at Maryland). -mark -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@mimsy.umd.edu Phone: +1-301-454-7817 After May 15, 1987: weiser@parcvax.xerox.com