gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (02/07/87)
[Discussion is hereby moved to news.software.b from comp.os.minix.] In article <1717@hoptoad.uucp> I write: > Since netnews runs on 11's, it can be ported to Minix. Note that all the > netnews software is public domain already (even though recent versions > have an invalid copyright notice by Rick Adams: the software was written > by many people and contributed by them to the public domain). In article <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>, rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes: > The copyright notice IS valid. One of the things you can do with public > domain software is stick your copyright notice on it. The point of my adding > the copyright notice is to keep someone from doing the same thing and trying > to sell it as theirs. > > Public domain means that anyone can do anything with it. That includes selling > it, claiming they wrote it, etc. But since the software is actually public domain, Rick's copyright holds no force. Anyone can do anything with it, including remove the copyright notice, or insert their own. A copyright is not a bunch of words, it's the ownership of some information. If Rick doesn't own netnews, then his notice in the source claiming to own it is just a bunch of empty words. It doesn't "keep someone from doing the same thing and trying to sell it as theirs". It just complicates the legal situation around people making legitimate use of netnews, since the words that come with it don't accurately describe the legal status of the code. Now it *is* possible to copyright an "arrangement" or "collection" of public domain information; e.g. a telephone book is copyrighted this way, since they don't own the names and addresses -- just the arrangement. Rick could be claiming to own the arrangement of the 2.11 netnews release, while the public owns the individual pieces of code, but again this strikes me as needlessly cumbersome and inappropriate. We've had enough trouble with people sticking "this is public domain" notices on Unix sources and such -- let's not stick "this is copyright" notices on PD stuff either. Especially PD stuff that so many people from our own community have labored over. -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania (terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.)
ron@unirot.UUCP (02/08/87)
John, you left out one thing here. Rick Adams copyright protects his changes to the public domain code. It is not OK to just rip a copyright notice off code even if it is based on public domain source source. And if you know precisely what the public domain rendition of the code is they you would be using that rather than copying the modified rendition. -Ron
spaf@gatech.UUCP (02/09/87)
Summary: John Gilmore claims that Rick Adams' copyright notice in the
netnews source is not valid and should be ignored, removed, etc.
Note that I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Rick can
indeed copyright that software since he has made extensive changes
and bug fixes to it, including adding some additional code. The last
public posting of code without a copyright notice was probably 2.10.2
and anyone wishing to can do with that as they wish. However, any
copies of 2.11, or derivations from 2.11, still must respect
Rick's copyright.
In layman's terms, he put in a major effort to modify and adapt someting
in the public domain, and he can legally claim a copyright on the
result. Luckily for us, Mr. Adams is not charging or otherwise
restricting the use of the software.
--
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf@gatech.EDU
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafreintom@rocky2.UUCP (02/11/87)
In article <1765@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > > [...] > > We've had enough trouble with people sticking "this is public domain" notices > on Unix sources and such -- let's not stick "this is copyright" notices on > PD stuff either. Especially PD stuff that so many people from our own > community have labored over. > -- > John Gilmore > Love your country but never trust its government. > -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania [] Actually, if you copyright a work, you can control who can and who can't copy it. If you don't copyright it, anyone can do anything he wants, including claim it's his. There is no way of officially denoting something as public domain. If it is not copyrighted, then it is public domain. If it is public domain, that means no one has claimed the right to control on exclude rights to copy. I agree with your point that it's a rotten thing to do to claim substantial labor as your own and take credit. However rotten it is, though, it *is* legal. -Tom -- Tom Reingold; The Rockefeller University; 1230 York Av; NY 10021 PHONE: (212) 570-7709 [office]; (212) 304-2504 [home] ARPANET: reintom@rockefeller.arpa BITNET: REINTOM@ROCKVAX UUCP: {seismo|ihnp4|yale|harvard|philabs|phri}!cmcl2!rna!rocky2!reintom
gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (02/14/87)
It's late, and maybe I really missed something, but am I the *only* person who's upset that the ownership of the netnews software has been stolen from the Usenet community? > Luckily for us, Mr. Adams is not charging or otherwise > restricting the use of the software. Gee, we are really lucky. Let me guess, version 2.12 will cost us $500. Just like registering a domain name or renting the key for a stargate decoder. Also known as "how to make money off the once-free Usenet". Somehow as phone calls get cheaper, the price of Usenet membership keeps rising. If we don't keep our rights, they will be usurped. Who wrote this stuff? We did! Rick sure didn't, though he had his hands in it. He certainly was willing to take the public domain 2.10.3 beta code and insert my changes and a few other peoples' and call it 2.11, copyright by him. This happened to Macsyma. MIT wrote it, using ARPA money (your taxes). Now you have to pay Symbolics thousands of dollars to get it -- in binary! -- though it used to be public domain. I call that slimy. Do you want this to happen to netnews? Will Richard Stallman have to rewrite netnews because the one the Usenet runs has become licensed software? Or am I the only person taking the copyright seriously? The rest of you would be glad to pay for the next version (buying back the code you wrote) or would be glad to copy it illegally no matter who owns it? [This is not to run down the work Rick did in assembling the software. The release would not be out without him. I would rather have public domain 2.10.3 and no 2.11 existing than a privately owned 2.11 though.] I would like Rick to abandon his claim and place the software back into the public domain. Is there a good reason for him to continue claiming copyright, if he really doesn't plan to charge for (or otherwise control the use of) the software? -- John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu Love your country but never trust its government. -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania
phil@amdcad.UUCP (02/15/87)
In article <1808@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >[This is not to run down the work Rick did in assembling the software. >The release would not be out without him. I would rather have public >domain 2.10.3 and no 2.11 existing than a privately owned 2.11 though.] As I understand it, 2.10.3 is still public domain. Copyrighting 2.11 doesn't affect the status of the previous versions of netnews. >I would like Rick to abandon his claim and place the software back into >the public domain. Is there a good reason for him to continue claiming >copyright, if he really doesn't plan to charge for (or otherwise control >the use of) the software? Stallman, has NOT placed the GNU software in the public domain but instead claims ownership with various distribution restrictions. There's not much difference between Stallman and Adam's stated intentions, that they are only asserting copyright to prevent others from unfairly exploiting the software. -- How can I be Asian when I like milk so much? Phil Ngai +1 408 982 7840 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,hplabs,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (02/16/87)
In article <1808@hoptoad.uucp> John Gilmore writes: >Will Richard Stallman have to rewrite netnews because the one the Usenet >runs has become licensed software? >I would like Rick to abandon his claim and place the software back into >the public domain. Is there a good reason for him to continue claiming >copyright, if he really doesn't plan to charge for (or otherwise control >the use of) the software? John, as I recall, the GNU software has a copyright on it. It is not in the public domain. I can't do anything I want with it, like packaging it with some other software and selling it for megabucks. There is a pretty restrictive notice on it saying that I can't sell anything that contains GNU code. That's fine with me. If the GNU folks want to make the fruit of their labors available with that kind of restriction, that's their business. As I see it, Rick has done the same thing with the Netnews 2.11 software. He has placed a copyright notice on it. Here is a copy of it (out of batch.c). * This software is Copyright (c) 1985 by Rick Adams. * * Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or * otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary * profit gained specifically from the use or reproduction or this * software, it is not sold, rented, traded or otherwise marketed, and * this copyright notice is included prominently in any copy * made. Doesn't sound too different from the GNU restrictions to me, except that it's more succinct. The only difference seems to be that the 2.11 software was based on code that was originally in the public domain and that the GNU stuff was never (?) in the public domain. Really, John, I don't see what you're "bitching" about. No one's going to force me to pay $500 for the next version as long as this one's available, and the notice makes it available for free. Without the copyright notice, I could take the netnews software, compile it on each of the different machines that I have access to, package it up with laser printer copies of the documentation and sell it for *big bucks* to anyone foolish enough to want to spend money to read all this drivel. The copyright notice says not only that I can't do this, but that anyone can get a copy for free. (It does sound like I can make a small charge to cover my costs, if I like, as long as I don't make a profit, but I can't advertise any distribution service ("marketed").) The only question that comes to mind for me is that of "derivative works" (like bug fixes?). Of all the people on this net, Rick is one of only about half a dozen that I would trust to do what's right with all this. -- Ron Heiby, cuae2!mcdchg!heiby Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.os.unix Motorola Microcomputer Division (MCD), Schaumburg, IL "They are the best selling knives of its kind ever sold by us!" [sic(k)]
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (02/17/87)
Greg Woods recently posted a rather heated reply to some excellent points that John Gilmore made. I'd like to make some comments on the exchange: John posted "..am I the *only* person who's upset that the ownership of the netnews software has been stolen from the Usenet community?" to which Greg replied: > STOLEN??! Are you serious or just paranoid? News 2.11 is one of the >most widely distributed pieces of FREE (do you know what that means?) >software on the entire net. How can you steal what is being given away >for free?? Is it late, or am *I* missing something? I strongly disagree with what Greg says here. The distribution mechanism for netnews means that it is *freely licensed* but it is *NOT* free. It is also not public domain. It is similar to how Elm and the GNU software is shipped, I believe. As to whether it is a good thing or not, well, if Rick Adams really did spend an enormous amount of time on the software then it is not unreasonable for him not to release it into the public domain - that is certainly his perogative (witness Lauren and the uucp-on-pc situation). The real question I think is whether we should USE this software versus having a group of people (I'd be interested in being included) rewrite the netnews software with the explicit understanding that it has NO copyright and has NO limitations on its distribution. NOTHING. Totally public domain. THAT would be A Good Thing. >>Gee, we are really lucky. Let me guess, version 2.12 will cost us $500. > > I doubt it. If it does, *we* sure won't be running it and neither >will most other sites on the net! You'd be pretty suprised, Greg. I talked to some people yesterday and I mentioned that exact thing - 'what if it cost money to get the next release of netnews?' and they replied 'if that was the only way we could get it we'd buy it. (gregbo also made an interesting comment about how he was of the impression that the news 2.11 implementation "team" talked for a while about making it incompatible, thereby forcing sites to update. If someone really wanted to make money in the netnews community one could come up with an incompatible system, give free copies to 'backbone sites' (plus a 1% kickback?) and then CHARGE THE HELL OUT OF LEAF SITES. *THAT* is the kind of thing that we might just see on this Brave New Net if we aren't careful). >>Just like registering a domain name or renting the key for a stargate decoder. >>Also known as "how to make money off the once-free Usenet". Somehow >>as phone calls get cheaper, the price of Usenet membership keeps rising. That is true. I've always had some serious misgivings about the Stargate project, not the least of which is that I can see some backbone sites saying "well now there's stargate so we won't ship out articles any more." (it *is* a logical extension). That would be A Bad Thing. I am firmly unconvinced that Stargate is going to be worth the time and effort to use. Not to mention the problems with reliability of transmission, and so on... The deal with paying for a domain registration is even more of a really bad setup. As Greg was, I was shocked to hear that the USENIX Usenet group was going to *charge* money for domain registration. So much for the public orientation of the Usenet... And quite frankly I don't really care if they are making money or not. That is *NOT* the issue here. The issue is that hosts that want to join usenet now are not merely stuck having to find a local feed for mail and later news, but are now tied into an administration, and have yearly registration fees and on and on. This is a very bad trend. Again, perhaps we should consider an alternative... Greg Woods then says: "True, we don't have to be a backbone site, but SOMEBODY DOES" That I disagree with. We could do perfectly well by eliminating the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout of 50 or more. It is a matter of convenience and logistics that cause us to have backbone sites. In fact, I think the net would be *better* if we didn't have backbone sites at all. It would certainly be more of an anarchy, which I would view as a very positive move from the more-and-more legislated playground for certain people that it has become... (my biggest disappointment is that the usenet community just sits back and lets this all happen...) (but it isn't suprising) As far as using phone bill cost as a reason for anything, then my reply is "then let's change the topology!". I don't think it is a good justification for having more limited newsgroups, more moderation, or whatever else is "in the works". John comments; > He [Rick Adams] certainly was willing to take the public domain 2.10.3 beta > code and insert my changes and a few other peoples' and call it 2.11, > copyright by him. This is quite disturbing. Enough so that I am going to seriously propose that we create a group to come up with a competing netnews software that is 100% public domain. More in a different posting. A final note: once software is released in the public domain it CANNOT be copyrighted by someone. It has already been distributed without the copyright notice so it is de facto public. The same holds true for anything that doesn't have the 'correct' copyright notice. Check it out if you don't believe me. ---- As a general comment, I think that what John was saying in his posting was reasonable and also a source of concern for the community. I think he asked some reasonable questions and made some valid observations. Greg Woods, on the other hand, came across as he, alas, always does: as a loud obnoxious person. I found his reply very bad, not only full of innacuracies, but also ignorant of certain realities of life. It was also unforgivably rude to John. -- Dave Taylor
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <539@hao.UCAR.EDU> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > I will give you a point for domain name registration, however. I was >*shocked* when I heard about that! Since that *is* eventually going >to be required, *that* is an issue that cannot be compared to >Stargate. Whoa - where did you ever get the idea that domain names are "eventually going to be required"? Domain names are required right now if you want a name that is recognized by the domain community. Always have been. But nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to get a domain name. I'm sure there will be lots of places that aren't interested in officially registered names, especially those who only want internal communication. Bang paths will continue to work for them as they always have, and in fact bang paths will continue to work for everybody who speaks UUCP. We do, of course, encourage people to join the UUCP Zone, because we can provide better service with domains than without them. But we intend to continue publishing the u.* part of the UUCP map, without charge, as a community service. Mark Horton
dyer@spdcc.UUCP (02/18/87)
Personally, I think the unannounced appearance of Adams' copyright notice was,
more than anything else, a lapse in propriety which generated unintended
but understandable mistrust; there's no argument here with whether he could do
what he did. Nevertheless, it takes a fair amount of chutzpah to put your
name on public-domain code even given the changes he made, seeing that the
previous contributors to the netnews code did not see fit to do just that.
Folks like John Gilmore feel strongly enough to speak up, but he says what
I felt in my gut when I first set eyes on the copyright notices.
I can appreciate the use of a copyright to keep netnews freely available;
however, there is already precedent for this with the mod.sources cookbook,
which is copyrighted by the USENET Community Trust.
--
Steve Dyer
dyer@harvard.HARVARD.EDU
dyer@spdcc.COM aka {linus,wanginst,bbnccv,harvard,ima,ihnp4}!spdcc!dyermerlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <1311@hplabsc.UUCP>, taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: > Greg Woods then says: "True, we don't have to be a backbone site, but > SOMEBODY DOES" > > That I disagree with. We could do perfectly well by eliminating > the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have > a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout > of 50 or more. It is a matter of convenience and logistics that cause > us to have backbone sites. My machine sits on AUTOVON, the Army's in-house long-distance company. This network connects all the Army posts in the world. If there are other SA's out there who have access to this network, and are interested in augmenting the backbone network, I'd be glad to participate. Of course, this is not really doing away with the concept of backbone, but if you don't like the way the backbone SA's are starting to think, do it yourself. I have a full news feed, running 2.11, with 1200/2400 modem. If you have access to AUTOVON, give me a call. The AUTOVON number is 224-6900. -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa UUCP: ...!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin
davest@sequent.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <1311@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >We could do perfectly well by eliminating >the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have >a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout >of 50 or more. It is a matter of convenience and logistics that cause >us to have backbone sites. In recent years, the backbone topology has been argued as being best because the backbone sites were the ones willing to pay for more in long distance charges so that the rest of the net could have reduced costs. The bigger reality in my mind is that this topology reduces article propagation time. Consider a "truly anarchic" Usenet, full of nodes with fanout of three or less (remember, we can't require anything of anyone in AnarchNet) and with long distance charges as low as possible. The result would be that news would take much longer to get about. >In fact, I think the net would be *better* if we didn't have backbone >sites at all. It would certainly be more of an anarchy, which I would >view as a very positive move from the more-and-more legislated playground >for certain people that it has become... In its state of greatest anarchy, the net was about to collapse under its own weight. This was about two or three years ago. Major newsfeeds were dropping away because the cost was too great. I contend that a stronger backbone coalition has allowed Usenet to survive for as long as it has. The success of things like moderation, and newsgroup renaming can be attributed in part by the backbone administrators taking charge and turning things arround. >As far as using phone bill cost as a reason for anything, then my reply >is "then let's change the topology!". I don't think it is a good >justification for having more limited newsgroups, more moderation, or >whatever else is "in the works". "Let's change the topology" sounds like hippies of the 60's: "we don't like the establishment so let's do away with it". Changing the topology of the net would make for slower propagation, and those few sites willing to maintain long distance lines would not do so for long, due to 50 answers to "who was Sky King's sidekick" and light bulb jokes. -- David C. Stewart tektronix!sequent!davest Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. davest%sequent.UUCP@tektronix.TEK.COM
ron@brl-sem.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <289@hqda-ai.UUCP>, merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (David S. Hayes) writes: > My machine sits on AUTOVON, the Army's in-house long-distance > company. This network connects all the Army posts in the world. > If there are other SA's out there who have access to this network, > and are interested in augmenting the backbone network, I'd be glad > to participate. Of course, this is not really doing away with the > concept of backbone, but if you don't like the way the backbone > SA's are starting to think, do it yourself. > Hold the phone. Use of AUTOVON for data is strictly against the regulations. I suggest you stop using this. Even data calls over FTS are restricted. You are supposed to be using DDN for this. -Ron
bill@green.UUCP (02/20/87)
In article <163@mcdchg.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (-Ron Heiby) writes: >In article <1808@hoptoad.uucp> John Gilmore writes: >As I see it, Rick has done the same thing with the Netnews >2.11 software. He has placed a copyright notice on it. Here is a copy of >it (out of batch.c). > * This software is Copyright (c) 1985 by Rick Adams. > * > * Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or > * otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary > * profit gained specifically from the use or reproduction or this > * software, it is not sold, rented, traded or otherwise marketed, and > * this copyright notice is included prominently in any copy > * made. >Doesn't sound too different from the GNU restrictions to me, except that >it's more succinct. The only difference seems to be that the 2.11 software >was based on code that was originally in the public domain and that the GNU >stuff was never (?) in the public domain. Really, John, I don't see what >you're "bitching" about. First, a comment about the GNU copyright; there was a long discussion in the appropriate groups about this and my understanding was that you could sell it if you wanted to but you had to include source code and the right to redistribute that source code. Obviously, this is going to dry up your market pretty quick unless you provide "support" for your customers. There is one thing about Rick's copyright above that bothers me. It says that no money can be made from the USE of this software. Now, I don't really know how "The WELL" operates, but it is my understanding that they are a commercial system on USENET. Does this mean that they can not use 2.11? Also, if a company uses 2.11 internally for shipping memos around is there a problem? (Quick sue AT&T :-). Perhaps Rick Adams, could be persuaded to remove the restrictions on use of the software. If there is someone with a better understanding of the law around, could they comment on this possibility? Bill Bogstad -- Bill Bogstad bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa (301)338-8019 seismo!mimsy!jhunix!green!bill Moderator of mod.computers.ridge
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/22/87)
> The deal with paying for a domain registration is even more of a really > bad setup. As Greg was, I was shocked to hear that the USENIX Usenet group > was going to *charge* money for domain registration. So much for the > public orientation of the Usenet... Are *you* willing to do the registration paperwork and overhead for free? If not, please shut up about this. Almost every successful user-founded organization (e.g. Usenix) goes through the stage of discovering that the whole thing has just gotten too big to be free any more, because there are too many real-money costs and the volunteer labor is about to quit because it's overworked and there is no end in sight. And there are always hotheads who scream bloody murder because something that they've been getting for free, and are convinced they have a *right* to, all of a sudden starts to cost money. If it's not worth anything to you, don't pay. If it is worth something to you, what's the problem with paying a nominal fee for it? "Public orientation" doesn't mean "free lunch"; look at your tax return. > ... We could do perfectly well by eliminating > the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have > a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout > of 50 or more... [Sounds of bitter laughter.] You have a peculiar notion of how the backbone functions. With the exception of a couple of oddballs like ihnp4, nobody has fanouts of 50+; with B news, no reasonable machine could handle that. Utzoo, for example, has a fanout of about 6. The reason why we are on the backbone is not the fanout but the Long Distance bills we pay. There is only so much that can be done by finding intermediate sites so the news moves in short hops rather than long ones. (Especially since this will often drive total bills up, since call cost is a non-linear function of distance.) News is increasingly flowing by non-phone paths like X.25, but that just changes the concentration points rather than eliminating them. There will always be sites that are much better equipped for long-haul communications than others. > ... (my biggest disappointment is > that the usenet community just sits back and lets this all happen...) If you are willing to do something about it, start doing so. The Network Police aren't going to come and seize your modems if you try to build an alternative to the current backbone. (In fact, if you really pull it off, most of the backbone admins will give up their current roles with shrieks of delight.) Go ahead. You'll find it's easier said than done. One of the biggest curses of being a backbone administrator is all those wonderful people who have Nifty Ideas about how the network could run better, but want somebody else -- with a strong hint it should be *me* -- to do something about implementing them. For quite a while now, my answer has been "I'm burned out on hacking the net; it already causes me ample grief; if *you* want things fixed that badly, *you* fix them". If I wasn't so familiar with the pattern, it would be a source of constant amusement to see how few of the complainers are willing to put in the long, hard hours needed to make their ideas fly. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
spaf@gatech.UUCP (02/23/87)
Let me echo Henry's comments:
1) If you don't like the current backbone structure, form your own.
If you can provide reliable service with the same (or less) propagation
delay than the current backbone structure, then I think you'd find a
number of backbone sites gladly turning it over.
For example, here at "gatech", we exchange a full newsfeed with 4 other
backbone sites, and partial feeds to 4 others; we feed 10 other sites
with a full news feed, and 6 more with partial feeds. Our phone bills
are higher than we'd like, but luckily we have some cheap methods we
can use to good advantage. We move between 6Mb and 15Mb of uucp
traffic DAILY for news and mail, much of it at 1200 baud.
I spend at least an hour a day maintaining the software and
connections, and dealing with mail. I don't get paid *anything* for
what I do -- my job is as a research scientist here at Tech, and in
fact, my boss would prefer that I spent less time and energy on the net
and more on my job. So do I. I shudder to think about the time spent
by other admins -- and I wonder if Rick Adams ever sleeps.
I used to enjoy the net, and I used to read a lot of the groups.
Nowadays, I don't have time to read anything other than the news.*
groups and one or two mod.* groups. The continuing antagonism and
invective heaped on those of us making hard choices to keep the network
alive is getting to me, and I try to keep a low profile these days. I
wonder what would happen if we (backbone sites) became read-only
sites. Disconnect seismo, ihnp4, decvax, hplabs, akgua, mcnc, gatech,
cuae2, linus, utzoo. That's just 10 sites. What do you think would
happen to the North American network? I bet it wouldn't kill Usenet,
but the results *would* be instructive. Maybe we ought to try it for a
month....
2) If you don't like the software, write your own. As Henry said,
if you come up with something with advantages and if it meets the
standards expected by the community, then maybe people will use it.
Be prepared for abuse, though, by people who think you should have
done it *their* way. Expect countless requests for bugfixes, patches,
changes, and enhancements. Expect requests to make it run on machines
and Unix versions you never knew existed, each with its own little
quirks. Expect people to look to you for software solutions to
human problems. Watch how some people will take your code and do
awful things to it that you absolutely do not want done, and either
balme you (if it fails) or take all the credit for themselves (if it
works). Then let's have this discussion again.
3) If you don't want to pay $150 or $200 to register a domain in the
UUCP structure, don't. If you want an official subdomain, you can
always pay $10000 for CSNet registration. Or pay the $100K costs to
join ARPA -- if they'll let you. Pay to get two machines hooked up to
the Internet, configure your mailer to forward domain mail, and handle
all the paper work and you're more than welcome to offer free second
and third level naming to anyone who wants it. But don't complain that
the people who are doing it now are expecting something to help defray
costs unless you provide a viable alternative.
The botton line is, it sure is easy to criticize if you aren't the one
doing the work and paying the costs.
--
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: Spaf@gatech.EDU
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spafmcb@styx.UUCP (02/24/87)
There has been an interesting debate over the last couple of weeks regarding the copyright status of the Usenet News software, arising from the distribution of the version 2.11 sources with a copyright notice affixed by Rick Adams. The debate has involved a number of people who help form the core of Usenet. I know most of them personally, and those I don't know personally I have corresponded with over the last couple of years. These are GOOD people, and I hope that they will not be terribly upset when I note that some of them are spreading absolute nonsense about copyright law and the nature of public domain software. I was originally going to try to do this by private mail, but the number of people involved and the intense netwide interest in this subject seems to make this article worthwhile. Here are two points of (U.S.) copyright law as it applies to the matter at hand. They are restated in my own language, simply because I am sitting in my consulting office and am not in a law library. (Also, nobody likes to read lawyer-gobbledy-gook.) The points I state are not controversial or research areas; they are known to all copyright attorneys and most law students. If there is sufficient interest I can possibly be goaded into posting statutory and case citations. 1. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT A PUBLIC DOMAIN WORK IN YOUR OWN NAME. U.S. copyright law restricts the subject matter of copyrightable works to "original works of authorship." This means that you have to have written (composed, collated, coded, derived, etc.) the work. If the work IS your own, but has previously been published (this is a technical term here and has a precise definition) without a copyright notice, and it is not simply the case that you inadvertantly omitted it, the work passed into the public domain at the time of publication and cannot thereafter be copyrighted, even by the author. What this means is that the copyright notice affixed to the News 2.11 distribution is a nullity. I appreciate Rick Adams' attempt to protect netnews from greedy resellers, but it just isn't necessary, and the copyright notice creates more problems by far than it solves. The 2.11 software is (subject to the remainder of this paragraph) in the public domain. Rick Adams can arguably assert copyright in his additions and modifications, but only to the extent that they consist of "original works of authorship." Changes submitted by others would not qualify, nor would simple bug fixes or other trivial changes. Even a reorganization of the code and new routine names would not qualify. Completely new routines or extensions to the code might. It can also be argued that the 2.11 version is simply a derivative work of News 2.10 (which is unarguably in the public domain), and that all such derivatives are therefore also in the public domain. 2. YOU CANNOT (MEANINGFULLY) ASSERT AUTHORSHIP OF A PUBLIC DOMAIN WORK THAT YOU DID NOT WRITE. This is not a copyright question; copyright law is generally silent on the matter of public domain works. But asserting authorship of something that you did not write, for the purpose of selling it, is simply misrepresentation, and covered under fraud law. This has nothing to do with your right to sell the work; you may certainly assert that you have the legal right to sell (i.e., make and deliver copies of) a public domain work. Falsely asserting your authorship of a work is no different than trying to pass off your aunt's paint-by-numbers as a real Picasso; it is misrepresentation. These two complementary points render, in my mind at least, the discussion over the ownership/copyrightability of the Usenet News software (or other public domain packages) moot. There is no danger of somebody "hijacking" PD software, putting their own name on it, copyrighting it, and selling it. If somebody attempts to do this with KNOWN public domain software (e.g., you have confirmed its status with the actual author(s)), you can simply ignore the reseller. Take their name off. Delete the copyright notice. Post it to the net. And let the reseller know you are doing it. Folks, remember that a copyright notice creates no copyright in and of itself. It is a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT, step in the process of assuring protection of your work. If there is no underlying copyrightability, a notice is just so many words. Oh yeah, I almost forgot my credentials and disclaimers. I am a lawyer who returned to computer science after a few years of practice, a fair amount of which dealt with computer software and intellectual property rights. I studied copyright law under Prof. Neil J. Boorstyn, who is one of the chief recognized authorities on copyright of computer software, and I have spoken on software law in various forums (forii?) here and there. I also used to be legal columnist for the late, lamented _Personal Computer Age_. Disclaimers: I have not actively practiced law for a few years, though I tend to keep up on software law matters. I remain an active member of the California Bar, which allows me to give free legal advice which (it must be understood) may be worth no more that is paid for it. I have NOT diff'ed News 2.10.3 and News 2.11 (I haven't even installed 2.11 here on styx yet), and make no firm conclusions as to copyrightability of any modifications and extensions; I WILL stand behind my opinion as to the public domain nature of any parts of 2.11 that are in 2.10 or earlier versions. Oh, and this is all based on U.S. law only, of course. Followups to news.misc, I'd say. Let's leave news.software.b to discussions of the actual code. Michael C. Berch ARPA: mcb@lll-tis-b.arpa UUCP: ...!lll-lcc!styx!mcb ...!lll-crg!styx!mcb ...!ihnp4!styx!mcb
roger@celtics.UUCP (02/24/87)
What everybody is neglecting to figure out here is that when we issue a piece of software and call it public-domain, that doesn't PREVENT anyone from selling it for a profit - it ENTITLES them to do it! Only the protections exercised by RMS on GNU, or in a less restrictive sense by Rick Adams on news, KEEP the software from being exploited for profit. -- ///==\\ (No disclaimer - nobody's listening anyway.) /// Roger B.A. Klorese, CELERITY (Northeast Area) \\\ 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552 \\\==// celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV - seismo!celtics!roger
roger@celtics.UUCP (02/24/87)
In article <527@spdcc.COM> dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >I can appreciate the use of a copyright to keep netnews freely available; >however, there is already precedent for this with the mod.sources cookbook, >which is copyrighted by the USENET Community Trust. >-- ...which I think is a fabrication. There is NO legal entity either named, or doing business as, the USENET Community Trust, is there? (No flames - I'm not certain this is true, but I'd be surprised if there is one.) If there is not, the copyright notice is worthless. -- ///==\\ (No disclaimer - nobody's listening anyway.) /// Roger B.A. Klorese, CELERITY (Northeast Area) \\\ 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552 \\\==// celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV - seismo!celtics!roger
chuq@plaid.UUCP (02/24/87)
In article <1469@celtics.UUCP> roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger Klorese) writes: >In article <527@spdcc.COM> dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >>I can appreciate the use of a copyright to keep netnews freely available; >>however, there is already precedent for this with the mod.sources cookbook, >>which is copyrighted by the USENET Community Trust. >>-- >...which I think is a fabrication. There is NO legal entity either named, >or doing business as, the USENET Community Trust, is there? (No flames - >I'm not certain this is true, but I'd be surprised if there is one.) >If there is not, the copyright notice is worthless. I'll let the USENET Community Trust speak for itself, but if you're looking for a copyright precedent, look no further than OtherRealms, my newsletter (published, for those that haven't seen it on mod.mag.otherrealms). It is copyrighted both to protect my interests and the rights of the people who write for me. And last I heard, the copyright holder (namely me) existed. So far, I've been very happy and stayed the hell out of this ludicrous discussion, because I've been alternately incredulous and hysterical. I'm truly amazed at the number of experts in copyright law and networking we have out there, especially since few of them have any idea of what they are talking about. All I can say is that I'm glad I don't deal with Netnews administration anymore because if I was Rick, I would have been mortally offended long ago and told you all to take a flying leap off a short pier. It is real simple. It is legal for Rick to Copyright the changes made to news for 2.11. If you don't like it, run a public domain version of news, like 2.10.2. If you don't like the way THIS network is run, go start your own. You're welcome to it. chuq Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM [I don't read flames] There is no statute of limitations on stupidity
reid@decwrl.UUCP (02/28/87)
In article <1469@celtics.UUCP> roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger Klorese) writes: >In article <527@spdcc.COM> dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: >>I can appreciate the use of a copyright to keep netnews freely available; >>however, there is already precedent for this with the mod.sources cookbook, >>which is copyrighted by the USENET Community Trust. >...which I think is a fabrication. There is NO legal entity either named, >or doing business as, the USENET Community Trust, is there? (No flames - >I'm not certain this is true, but I'd be surprised if there is one.) >If there is not, the copyright notice is worthless. The USENET Community Trust is a registered DBA in Santa Clara County California, proprietor Brian K. Reid (that's me). I spent $70 of my own money getting it set up. It exists solely for the purpose of holding the copyright, of course, and does not do any business, but as you point out, if the organization does not exist the copyright is worthless. Brian
larry@kitty.UUCP (03/01/87)
In article <8332@decwrl.DEC.COM>, reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes: > >>I can appreciate the use of a copyright to keep netnews freely available; > >>however, there is already precedent for this with the mod.sources cookbook, > >>which is copyrighted by the USENET Community Trust. > > >...which I think is a fabrication. There is NO legal entity either named, > >or doing business as, the USENET Community Trust, is there? > > The USENET Community Trust is a registered DBA in Santa Clara County > California, proprietor Brian K. Reid (that's me). I spent $70 of my own money > getting it set up. It exists solely for the purpose of holding the copyright, > of course, and does not do any business, but as you point out, if the > organization does not exist the copyright is worthless. I can appreciate the efforts of Mr. Reid in trying to make the "USENET Community Trust" a legal entity; however, he took an action whose legal significance may be different from what he intended. As Brian K. Reid d/b/a USENET Community Trust, Mr. Reid _owns_ the USENET Community Trust, (at least in Santa Clara County, CA) and therefore _owns_ the copyright of any software which he distributes under his assumed name. From a legal standpoint, this situation is no different than having a copyright under his own name. And this is analogous to the personal copyright by Rick Adams, which started this whole "tempest in a teapot". For all intents and purposes, any attempted enforcement of any copyright of Usenet news software, whether claimed by Rick Adams, Brian Reid, or Brian Reid d/b/a USENET Community Trust is impracticable. Mr. Reid has spent $ 70.00 for his d/b/a to protect what _should_ be public domain software from exploitation. However, to even _begin_ to _enforce_ his intention will likely cost about 100 times that figure in attorney costs! Copyrights (and patents, for that matter) "sound" nice on the surface - until one gets in the real world to enforce them. As an example, I hold a number of patents; of them, three British patents (GB2032665B, GB2112189B, and GB2111277B) and a U.S. patent (4,408,291) are being blatantly infringed upon at this moment. What am *I* going to do about that? Nothing, for the forseeable future. I have licensed these patents to a a Fortune 500 corporation who has far more money that I do; what is this corporation going to do? Nothing, for the moment, because an enforcement action is not yet cost-effective and may _never_ be cost-effective... Please bear in mind that I am neither putting down nor flaming either Brian Reid or Rick Adams; I believe they did what they genuinely felt was in the best interests of the USENET community. However, I feel that any effort expended in making any copyright attempt for this purpose is wasted. <> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <> UUCP: {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rocksanne|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <> VOICE: 716/688-1231 {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/ <> FAX: 716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes} "Have you hugged your cat today?"
reid@decwrl.UUCP (03/01/87)
In article <1625@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes: > I can appreciate the efforts of Mr. Reid in trying to make the >"USENET Community Trust" a legal entity; however, he took an action whose >legal significance may be different from what he intended. > > As Brian K. Reid d/b/a USENET Community Trust, Mr. Reid _owns_ the >USENET Community Trust, (at least in Santa Clara County, CA) and therefore >_owns_ the copyright of any software which he distributes under his assumed >name. From a legal standpoint, this situation is no different than having >a copyright under his own name. > For all intents and purposes, any attempted enforcement of any >copyright of Usenet news software, whether claimed by Rick Adams, Brian >Reid, or Brian Reid d/b/a USENET Community Trust is impracticable. Mr. Reid >has spent $ 70.00 for his d/b/a to protect what _should_ be public domain >software from exploitation. However, to even _begin_ to _enforce_ his >intention will likely cost about 100 times that figure in attorney costs! You must have lived in New York for too long. First, let me point out that the legal significance of what I did is exactly what I intended. I am quite familiar with the theory and practice of copyright law, and so is my lawyer. I am also quite familiar with the realities of copyright in the U.S. right now. Finally, let me point out that having a copyright in the name of a DBA is not the same as having it in my own name, because I can sell the DBA and its assets to some worthy organization (e.g. Usenix) without having to muck with the copyright. If the copyright were in my own name I could not do that. (It's late at night right now and I can't ask my lawyer for nitty-gritty facts about what happens when you sell a copyright or sell an organization owning a copyright, but he explained it all to me once.) A copyright is a mechanism somewhat like the yellow line down the middle of the road. It has legal status, but does not enforce anything. If somebody swerves across the yellow line he can crash into my car; the yellow line doesn't enforce the law--the police do. In most states it is just as illegal to swerve across the road if the yellow line is missing; the yellow line serves as a reminder. Similarly, the copyright doesn't enforce anything, and violation of copyright isn't even a crime (so you can't call the police to enforce it for you). A copyright is just a license to sue. It isn't even a guarantee that you will win the suit, but posession of a valid copyright significantly strengthens your case. I started copyrighting the mod.recipes material when I learned of a project to publish a commercial cookbook from the material. The moment the copyright notices started appearing, the publisher backed out. There is honor among thieves, and there is mutual respect for copyright among publishers. If some slimebucket publisher decided to ignore my copyright and steal all the material, of course I couldn't stop him. If some drunken teenager decided to ignore the yellow line and swerve into my lane, I couldn't stop him either. But in both cases the system works because the majority of the participants are willing to obey the law whenever they remember to obey it. The copyright notice serves as a reminder that the material is copyrighted, not as an enforcement mechanism to prevent it from being stolen. People violate copyright with their xerox machines and their cassette decks every day of the week. Besides my USENET activity and my regular job, I also am the owner of a record label (Woodpecker Records). We manufacture and sell record albums, cassettes, and (soon) CD's. There's really nothing I can do to prevent you from making a copy of one of my albums and sending the copy to your sister, but the copyright-like legal protections on my albums will prevent MCA from making and selling an album with copies of my company's material on it. That's all I really care about. The reason it will prevent MCA from making copies is not that I will need to sue MCA, but that MCA will not knowingly violate a copyright lest somebody use that action as precedent and violate one of theirs. It's sound business practice. If you believe that the world consists entirely of criminals, then you are right: I can't enforce anything with my copyrights. But if you believe that the people in the world who are likely to want to publish my copyrighted material are more likely than not to obey the copyright law, then my copyright is useful. The example of patents is somewhat of a red herring, for reasons that I don't want to delve into in this posting because it's getting too long already. Copyrights are not the same as patents; the laws are different, the rewards for infringing them are different, and the nature of an infringement suit is different.
jay@imagen.UUCP (03/03/87)
In article <1625@kitty.UUCP>, larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
-> [ Summary: Brian Reid, d/b/a mumble mumble, is wasting his time and
-> money copyrighting USENET sofware for the good of the USENET
-> community, since it's prohibitively troublesome and expensive to
-> take legal action to protect one's copyrights anyway . . . -- j.j. ]
-> . . .
->
-> Please bear in mind that I am neither putting down nor flaming
-> either Brian Reid or Rick Adams; I believe they did what they genuinely felt
-> was in the best interests of the USENET community. However, I feel that any
-> effort expended in making any copyright attempt for this purpose is wasted.
But doesn't the existence of this copyright preclude any big greedy commercial
software vendor from plagiarizing the code and selling it under its own
copyright and enforcing that copyright, which might otherwise happen if Brian
hadn't created the above-discussed copyright? I wonder if maybe that is
what Brian had in mind?
(The point is, Big Greedy Company could plagiarize if Brian can't afford
to protect his rights -- but this way, if Big Greedy Company tried to enforce
_its_ claimed copyright, it wouldn't have a leg to stand on.)
--
-- From the alternate universe . . . -- Jay
...{sun,decwrl,ucbvax}!imagen!jay