taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (02/17/87)
While recently perusing the latest version of netnews, 2.11, from Rick Adams, I noticed that it is now copyrighted by him. This is a cause for concern for various reasons, not the least of which is that we suddenly have a piece of software that everyone is running and is freely distributed (but not public domain) that is legally owned by an individual. So instead I'd like to propose a group of people get together and work on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without copyright and without any limitations on its use and distribution. If people want to try to foist a copy off with their own copyright that's okay (of course it wouldn't be a valid copyright anyway since it had already been distributed withOUT one). We will make the public domain version easily available through various mechanisms including netnews itself. If it comes to pass that the Rick Adams/backbone-gang version of netnews begins to cost money to obtain, then I would expect that the public domain version we'd write would be included on such things as the USENIX distribution tape and in mod.sources (Rich?). Even if not, it would be useful to have yet a different implementation of the software since diversity and competition breeds improvement. Sooo...I'd like to begin building a list of people that are interested in this "public service to the usenet" project. If you have a willingness to contribute positively to the group (either through documentation, programming, debugging through actual use, or merely useful feedback) please drop me a line and I'll start to organize this. Later on I think we should create a newsgroup for it...but that'll be a function of how things work out. I propose that we call the effort "pd-netnews" and our first version be something like version 2.11. No. I guess that would be kinda confusing, eh? :-) It is important for people to realize that this isn't merely a "lets get back at Rick Adams" game. I think Rick is a reasonable person and is an asset to the net. I just am very *VERY* disturbed by his adding a copyright to the latest netnews software...it is a harbinger of even more change... All responses are being funnelled into news.software.b for now, so if you'd like to continue the discussion, please put it there or via email to me. -- Dave Taylor (taylor@hplabs.HP.COM)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >While recently perusing the latest version of netnews, 2.11, from >Rick Adams, I noticed that it is now copyrighted by him. This is >a cause for concern for various reasons, not the least of which is that >we suddenly have a piece of software that everyone is running and is >freely distributed (but not public domain) that is legally owned by >an individual. Whoa! Rick copyrighted copyrighted the version of netnews that he updated and helped debug and test. You may not agree with this, but you are free to take earlier versions and create your own 2.11 version. Or perhaps examine the details of the copyright and distribution provisions. Rick has been distributing, for the cost of mailing, updated, patched versions of news 2.10.x, 2.11 and other useful software for quite a while and has never suggested that anybody should have to pay for any of it. Rick has also been lending support to *TWO* version of news that would replace B news altogether, neither of which would particulary have to carry his copyright. Please note that while Public Domain and Freely Distributed software are not the same thing, they can serve similar purposes depending on the practices of the copyright holder. Truly Public Domain software is kinda like a virgin, subject to status change at any moment. Freely redistributable software has been around a bit and picked up a bit of protection... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
tower@bu-cs.UUCP (02/18/87)
In article <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> you write: > While recently perusing the latest version of netnews, 2.11, from > Rick Adams, I noticed that it is now copyrighted by him. This is > a cause for concern for various reasons, not the least of which is that > we suddenly have a piece of software that everyone is running and is > freely distributed (but not public domain) that is legally owned by > an individual. > > ... > > All responses are being funnelled into news.software.b for now, so if > you'd like to continue the discussion, please put it there or via email > to me. > > -- Dave Taylor (taylor@hplabs.HP.COM) Dave: The problems you fear aren't solved by putting the software into the Public Domain. I suggest that you consider organizing the netnews rewrite under the Free Software Foundation that Richard Stallman has organized for his GNU Project. RMS' approach insures that the software had its freedom, and that source is always available whenever the software is distributed. You might also organized a similar non-profit corporation to hold the copyright, and license the software in the "free" or "public-domain-like" manner you choose. Further information is available from the internet address: <gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu> UUCP: ..!mit-eddie!mit-prep!gnu -- Len Tower, Distributed Systems Group, Boston University, 111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA +1 (617) 353-2780 Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739 UUCP: {}!harvard!bu-cs!tower INTERNET: tower@bu-cs.bu.edu
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (02/18/87)
[Watch out! Here come the big guns!] In article <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >So instead I'd like to propose a group of people get together and work >on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without copyright and >without any limitations on its use and distribution. There's a fly in your ointment, Dave. The ONLY way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code, or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself. Even if you go and get this "group of people together and work on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without copyright", there is nothing to prevent Rick Adams from adding a few lines and copyrighting it again. Being the terrible ogre that he is, he probably will. Grrr!!!!. What can you do? I suggest that when you write this new and wonderful new version of news, you copyright it, explicitly making it freely redistributable, swearing up and down that you will never charge any money for it, so that terrible Rick Adams can't swipe your code and sell it. Only this would sound terribly familiar, since it is exactly the motivation Rick had in putting the copyright into the netnews software... ...and that I had in putting a copyright notice into rn! I'm a terrible ogre, too! Grrr!!!! Grrr!!!! I'm afraid you've fallen victim to an oversimplified view of reality. Is there anything I can do to persuade you that those who developed the news software in the first place know the meaning of the word "volunteer"? That they already thought about what you are concerned about? The fact is, Rick Adams and I trust ourselves not to sell this software more than we trust anyone else not to sell this software. Got that? Long ago, we realized that it would be absolutely impossible to sell netnews software (for very long), given the presence of hotheads like you who would rewrite netnews in a flash. The fact of the matter is, Rick and I are hotheads like you. While we realize it is impossible to sell netnews software in the current anarchical environment, long may it live, we also realize that it is possible for someone of unsavory character to try to sell netnews to a gullible sub-population, such as new MINIX users, or some such. Eventually such an unsavory person would be shouted down and drowned out by us hotheads, but not before some people got burned. The prevention of this is the only reason for the copyright in rn. I firmly believe it is the only reason for the copyright in netnews. It is unfortunate, but there it is: the only way under our current laws to come closest to the ideal of "Public Domain" software is to NOT put it into the public domain. Now perhaps you can understand why so many people are upset because you are upset at Rick. He's been bending over backwards to be the ideal volunteer, even going so far as to risk his reputation as the ideal volunteer to do so. So, enough of panicking and shooting your comrades in the back. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (02/19/87)
Gee, Larry. I'm sure glad that you have such a mature and intelligent way of dealing with serious and important issues. It certainly makes *me* want to listen to what you have to say... But let's talk further about your posting anyway... >The only way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code, >or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself. Suprise! That isn't the case. Because once something is released in the public domain without a copyright it cannot later have a copyright attached and ex post facto violation of copyright claimed. Furthermore, since the majority of the code the person is claiming as his has been previously released without a copyright, their claim is invalid and not legally binding. The person *can* copyright their modifications to the code. Furthermore, since the whole area of "intellectual copyright" is so fuzzy they could also presumably claim ownership of the changes (ideas), but this still doesn't preclude someone else from, as you say, becoming a hothead and rewriting the new part withOUT the copyright. This in fact is how a number of programs have become available - individuals / companies have taken very buggy and unreliable public domain software, extensively worked on it to make it worth buying, and sold it. The *core* is still public domain, but the program itself is something that you cannot copy freely. But that is ok. In fact, that would be A Good Thing for netnews since, with all deference to Rick and the rest of the people who have worked on it, it is hardly in a state where we can freeze it and not need any further development. We need to see some radical software evolution... >...there is nothing to prevent Rick Adams from adding a few lines >and copyrighting it [a new netnews] again. As I pointed out above, this is patently not the case. Sure Rick could do that (seems unlikely, though), but it wouldn't be a legal and valid copyright. Not under current U.S. and International Copyright laws, at least. >I'm afraid you've fallen victim to an oversimplified view of reality. I'm afraid YOU've fallen victim to an inadequate understanding of the laws surrounding copyright. I refer you to a publication of the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology Assessment entitled "Intellectual Property in an Age of Electronics and Technology". It would indeed give you some food for thought. But this isn't even the crux of my argument - I'm more concerned with the overtones of the copyright of netnews within the USENET community. Up until now all versions of netnews have been without copyright and this has caused a number of mutants to spin off, including the about to be released C News, and the (rumoured) Teenage Mutant Ninja Netnews (!) from out of NJ somewhere.. Once a copyright has been established on the code, then people are legally bound to keep it in. And they will inevitably add their own copyright too - since otherwise it is implied that the original copy- right covers their work too (certainly not a good state of affairs). When a copyrighted system is to be distributed, the distributor is bound *by law* to have written permission by the holder(s) of the copyright. This does *not* mean email and this does *not* mean a few line comment in the code (which is trivial to forge). This means that if, say, USENIX decided to distribute 2.19 (with 30 people having worked on it since the infamous copyright-battle of '87) they would have to track down and obtain the written release of all 30 people. If they missed one, that person could then legally sue the heck out of the organization for distribution of their property. But that isn't the crux either, just an unpleasant sidelight. What concerns me the most is that, damn it, USENET is supposed to be a totally free-for-all anarchistic system. We're already seeing it transition to an oligarchy with the central 'backbone' administration and other changes, but if we're going to suddenly have ownership of the *one piece of software that makes USENET a reality* then we might as well all go join FIDOnet or something. I appreciate that "rn" is copyrighted, Larry. So is Elm. But if Elm were the *only* mail system and everyone-and-their-brother used it, I would *remove* the copyright notice in the interest of it evolving and such. I would like to imagine that you're enough of a pro-USENET person that you would do the same if "rn" was the *only* way to read netnews. Fortunately, perhaps, it isn't. And fortunately, perhaps, there are mail systems other than Elm. But there aren't news transport programs other than 2.11. At least, not until C News comes out. (and I fervently hope that it isn't copy- righted). Does this make sense? Or are you still waiting with the annoying childish comments that you made in your original posting?? If C News *is* copyrighted, I will most certainly find a group of fellow-"hotheads" and we will most certainly spawn a new version of netnews. Probably one that will blow 2.11 out of the water. And again, this is *NOT* an attack on Rick, or a questioning of his integrity. I wish people would clue in on that. I think Rick is a Good Person. But I have a serious problem with his having copyrighted the netnews software, as I've documented here. I welcome any and all replies to this, but please keep it rational and professional. We *are* supposed to be a group of people who have some clue about reality, after all. -- Dave Taylor --
merlin@hqda-ai.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP>, lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) writes: > The ONLY way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling > your code, or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it > yourself. Even if you go and get this "group of people together > and work on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without > copyright", there is nothing to prevent Rick Adams from adding a > few lines and copyrighting it again. A simple question, which I'm sure will cause my inbox to overflow. What's so bad about the netnews software being sold? The 2.11 version carries a notice that it may be freely duplicated and redistributed (but not sold for profit). Suppose news 2.12 comes out, and carries a restrictive license, and a $xxx pricetag? Would any of us actually use it? You can't operate news in a vacuum, you need other sites to talk with. So the BADMeanie Company can't sell anything that (free, 2.11 sites) won't talk to. Let's suppose 2.11 was not copyrighted. BADMeanie Company tries to sell it, perhaps to MINIX users. So what? They can still get it free from any of us. If they choose to pay for it, and thereby get support and handholding from BMCo, that's their business. The only real problem I see is if BMCo subsequently tried to copyright the public-domain software. They may try, and they will succeed, in that they will be able to register the software with the Library of Congress (custodian of registered copyright works in the US). But they can't do anything with it. They can't get anything ($$$) from us in court, because they can't show that we came by a copy of their software improperly. So what's the problem with Public Domain software? -- David S. Hayes, The Merlin of Avalon PhoneNet: (202) 694-6900 ARPA: merlin%hqda-ai.uucp@brl.arpa UUCP: ...!seismo!sundc!hqda-ai!merlin
woods@hao.UUCP (02/19/87)
In article <1320@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >Gee, Larry. I'm sure glad that you have such a mature and intelligent >way of dealing with serious and important issues. I saw nothing immature or stupid in Larry's posting. It seemed quite well thought out to me. Oh, I guess it's because he disagrees with YOU... >It certainly makes *me* want to listen to what you have to say... I agree, Dave. And calling me "always loud and obnoxious" and Larry (by implication) "immature and stupid" really makes us want to listen to what YOU have to say. It does work both ways, you know. >>The only way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code, >>or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself. > >Suprise! That isn't the case. That is a blanket statement that simply cannot be applied in all cases. Regardless of how they define "sufficient modifications" needed to be copyrightable, there will always be a gray area. For example, if Larry didn't have a copyright on 'rn', what would stop me from replacing the pager part with one of my own that makes the display look different, and then putting my own copyright on it? At the very least, it would take a long and expensive lawsuit. And if it's in the public domain, who's going to sue me? Yes, you could say someone would be stupid to buy my version when Larry's is available for free, and I'd agree, but legally I'd be in the right. Who could tell me I'm wrong? With Larry's copyright, surely you can see that it is now a much more clear-cut issue. Now LARRY could sue for copyright infringment and probably win. In addition to this, when this kind of modification has to have the Larry's permission to be distributed, we run a much lower risk of having 20 different incompatible versions of the program out there. Look at all the problems we have because people are running different versions of netnews software. >with all deference to Rick and the rest of the people who have worked >on it, it is hardly in a state where we can freeze it and not need any >further development. I don't think Rick would argue that. I certainly wouldn't. But it would be nice if the development effort were organized, so that everyone contributes ideas and the best get chosen and implemented, instead of having 20 different "new" versions of news come out (what would the odds be that they are all compatible?). As you and John Gilmore both said, many other people's ideas and code were included in "Rick's" code. I see no reason to suddenly assume that that will no longer be the case in the next release of news. >We need to see some radical software evolution... At the very least, this is debatable, but I'm sure Rick (and Larry, and the backbone cabal, and...) is open to your suggestions. As it happens, news 2.11 itself represents at least a few radical changes (to the point where it is no longer compatible with previous versions; see how much trouble has been caused by THAT! If we had everyone developing their own version of news, that problem would surely grow worse. >What concerns me the most is that, damn it, USENET is supposed to >be a totally free-for-all anarchistic system. Wake up and smell the coffee. It ain't free. Lots of us, including your company, pay real dollars to keep it going. Them who pays gets to choose. And, as someone else suggested, if you don't like the way the backbone admins are going, there is nothing to stop you from setting up your own links and carrying whatever groups you want and running whatever software you like. Then, since you would be paying YOU could have decision-making power. And as it happens, even the backbone is not "all" powerful. Ideally we would like everyone to understand why we do what we do, but every time we try, we get flamed to death, so why bother? >if we're going to suddenly have ownership of >the *one piece of software that makes USENET a reality* then we might >as well all go join FIDOnet or something. Nothing is stopping you. >Or are you still waiting with the annoying >childish comments that you made in your original posting?? How mature of you, Dave. A bit obnoxious too. Sounds like we now have the pot calling the kettles black. >And again, this is *NOT* an attack on Rick, or a questioning of his >integrity. I wish people would clue in on that. You could have fooled me. Looks like you did a pretty good job of pulling the wool over Larry's eyes too. I join Larry in protesting the constant attacks that Rick suffers for all the work he has *voluntarily* done. This applies to a lesser extent to the rest of the backbone admins as well. Sure, we're not perfect, but Usenet is still alive despite exponential growth, and that's good for something. I can tell you this: if Rick Adams starts charging for netnews software, I'll be the first to blast him for it. But I see no reason to believe that that is what he plans. I think the sole purpose of the copyright is to attempt to standardize news software. I agree with that goal, and I can't think of anyone whom I trust more with that goal and whose copyright I'd rather see on that software than Rick Adams. --Greg UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu -- UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu
jimb@dopey.UUCP (02/20/87)
in many articles they write: > > While recently perusing the latest version of netnews, 2.11, from > > Rick Adams, I noticed that it is now copyrighted by him. This is And there are many responses in support of both sides. The *COPYRIGHT* is a moot point. It has been done. But there are many more messages going to appear on this subject. Time for news.software.copyright newsgroup? :-) -- +==== Jim Budler ==== Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ==== (408) 749-5806 ====+ | Compuserve: 72415,1200 Delphi: JIMBUDLER | | E-mail: jimb@amdcad.AMD.COM Opinion: who, me? | +=== Disclaimer: My company wouldn't let ME speak for them, would they? ===+
page@ulowell.UUCP (02/20/87)
I'm surprised at who I see flaming. As far as 2.11 being copyrighted. How about this: Rick, would you agree to remove the copyright notice in patch #4 and subsequent patches and/or updates of news (or change the instance of your name to something like "Usenet Community") and change "author" to "authors"? Let's cease fire until we have an answer, ok? ..Bob -- Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept. ulowell!page, page@ulowell.CSNET
msb@sq.UUCP (02/20/87)
> The ONLY way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code, > or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself. Hold it! There are two different cases here. It is NOT true that someone else can copyright something that you wrote and placed in the public domain. Only the author can claim, or assign away, a copyright. Someone else can put a copyright notice on it, but at most this creates a burden of proof. The existence of an earlier public domain copy invalidates the copyright claim. Derivative works are another matter. Mark Brader "I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pedantic and that's just as good." utzoo!sq!msb (me neither) (me too) -- D Gary Grady
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (02/21/87)
In article <1072@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu> page@ulowell.cs.ulowell.edu (Bob Page) writes: >As far as 2.11 being copyrighted. How about this: > > Rick, would you agree to remove the copyright notice in patch #4 > and subsequent patches and/or updates of news (or change the > instance of your name to something like "Usenet Community") > and change "author" to "authors"? I'm not speaking for Rick, but it is only fair to point out that "Usenet Community Trust" copyright used in mod.recipies does not necessarily have any legal standing. It does serve as a notice that the moderator/group does not wish to have the material published without the source being acknowledged. Rick's copyright (at least as a collection and/or for some parts) should have enough standing to serve his (clearly stated in the source) reasons for putting it there. Let's not confuse the issue by suggesting he can copyright it as long as the copyright is void... BTW, I wish everyone would remember that reading a book(s) or articles does not give one enough background to start offering absolute statements about the validity of copyrights or transition to and from public domain? Can we be humble enough to include those polite little conditional phrases - I think, as I understand it, should, might, etc, etc, etc? -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (02/21/87)
All this discussion about public domain news made me think of a few
things I would LOVE to see in future releases. These include:
1) A way to store the news in compressed form where rn (or whatever)
would uncompress on the fly for display purposes. This would help a LOT for
those of us with limited disk space. Also, for smaller machines that
forward news, it would be less CPU time (decompress-store-compress-send
turns into store-send)
2) A means to use your own pager with rn. It gets real tiring to
hit u (as in less) to back up and suddenly realize you just unsubscribed to
the silly group. Also, my machine doesn't trap ^B, it core dumps.
3) An automated mechanism for expire. Something that detected that
no-one on the machine reads a given group so expire it in <parameter> days.
4) More user control. I keep seeing messages like "I can't do xxx
and my system adminstrator won't help me".
As far as copyright notices, would it be better to license the
software? Something like:
To use this software you must return this (electronic) form.
(I think that for a licence to be valid, something must change
hands. Also, this would give the net a method to track new
machines). By returning said form, you agree not to sell this
work or any derivative work nor to permit it to ever be sold.
Furthermore, you agree to provide access to this work to other
interested parties at no charge (handling or otherwise). You
need not supply a copy for no charge, merely access to the
work. (Something about modifications being OK but original
notice must remain would be reasonable). Once the form has
been received by <wherever>, this license is valid for a period
of 99 years (I think you need dates to make stuff legal and no
one is going to use 99 year old software anyway). This license
may only be revoked if you violate this agreement.
comments?
--
===== Your life is your own fault! ============== Rebel or be oppressed! =====
Michael R. Wayne (313) 322-3986 UUCP: {epsilon|ihnp4}!mb2c!fmsrl7!wayne
Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company ** This space for rent **
Since I am an independent consultant, the above opinions ARE my employers.
===== Are your moral/ethical/religious/political beliefs really rational? ====henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/22/87)
> So instead I'd like to propose a group of people get together and work > on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without copyright and > without any limitations on its use and distribution... You may want to consider that there are at least two netnews-replacement projects already running, both of which intend relatively open release of their work. The one I'm involved with (C news) will be distributed with the same sort of copyright notice as other recent stuff from hereabouts: one that requires proper credit to the authors but otherwise explicitly authorizes wide-open use and distribution. You realize, I trust, that if you don't put a copyright on it, anyone can rip it off, put his name on it, and publish it without credit of any kind? Or make fifteen stupid changes that introduce an equal number of bugs, and pass it on to his friends claiming it came from you? This sort of thing is the reason why I no longer public-domain my stuff. -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (02/22/87)
Disclaimer: I haven't spoken to Geoff about the details of this, but I think the C-news team speaks with pretty much one mind on these issues. > Up until now all versions of netnews have been without copyright and > this has caused a number of mutants to spin off, including the about > to be released C News, and the (rumoured) Teenage Mutant Ninja Netnews... I can't speak for the TMNN crew, but C news is *not* a mutant of B news. It is a rewrite, from scratch. > When a copyrighted system is to be distributed, the distributor is > bound *by law* to have written permission by the holder(s) of the > copyright... Please cite chapter and verse on this. I think you'll find that it's not that simple; written permission is normal because it's very useful if a disagreement arises later, but verbal contracts are just as binding as written ones. In any case, I don't believe the issue comes up when the copyright notice itself explicitly authorizes distribution. > But there aren't news transport programs other than 2.11. At least, > not until C News comes out. (and I fervently hope that it isn't copy- > righted)... Barring major changes of mind, C news *will* be copyrighted, with a copyright notice similar to the ones we've used in the past: one that explicitly permits all manner of redistribution (including for-profit, since we have no religious objections to free enterprise) provided that credit is given. Our general position is that we have no objection to our stuff being used or redistributed, but we don't want ripoff artists claiming it for their own, and we most particularly don't want them introducing their own bugs and then having the victims blame the mess on us. These are *not* silly concerns. We *have* had our work used without credit, we *have* had it claimed by others, we *have* had other people's bugs blamed on us. We do not like any of this, and want to stop it (or at least reduce it). We think that almost anyone who seriously tries public-domain software distribution will feel the same way after a while. > If C News *is* copyrighted, I will most certainly find a group of > fellow-"hotheads" and we will most certainly spawn a new version of > netnews. Probably one that will blow 2.11 out of the water. Heh, heh. Rotsa ruck. You'll find that it's a whole lot of work, much more than you think. You may find it difficult to sustain the necessary enthusiasm over the difference between "use freely provided credit is given", and "use freely". You may also find it difficult to get people to adopt your stuff unless it offers other major advantages over the alternatives. Beating 2.11 is probably not that hard for anyone who starts from scratch and pays some attention to avoiding old mistakes, but 2.11 won't be your real competition by the time you get around to production release (which will take longer than you think). -- Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (02/24/87)
I wrote: >> The ONLY way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code, >> or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself. In article <1987Feb20.114205.12298@sq.uucp> msb@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes: >Hold it! There are two different cases here. It is NOT true that someone >else can copyright something that you wrote and placed in the public domain. >Only the author can claim, or assign away, a copyright. Someone else >can put a copyright notice on it, but at most this creates a burden >of proof. The existence of an earlier public domain copy invalidates the >copyright claim. > >Derivative works are another matter. I'm sorry I wasn't being clear. I was concerned with whether you could prevent someone from *selling* the code. I wasn't really concerned with whether the copyright is valid or not. When I said "copyright" I was thinking more of the act of putting a copyright notice in, such as Rick did in fact do. Fuzzy writing on my part. Grrr!!! But I'm a firm believer that if the reader doesn't understand, it's the writer's fault, so I'm not faulting you or Dave for not speaking to the point I was trying to address. Aside to Dave. I thank you for the compliment. I cultivate childishness in my writing because I find it generally has the effect I desire--it communicates a joy about living that generally makes people happier, and more receptive to the truth. Even with big, bad grownups who have forgotten what joy is all about, it helps keep them from falling asleep at their terminals. As my Whimsy takes me, Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (02/24/87)
In article <806@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: > All this discussion about public domain news made me think of a few >things I would LOVE to see in future releases. These include: > > 1) A way to store the news in compressed form where rn (or whatever) >would uncompress on the fly for display purposes. This would help a LOT for >those of us with limited disk space. The next version of rn will have support for multiple virtual article "protocols", such as NNTP, mail, etc. There's no reason you couldn't set up a protocol that just does a popen("compress -d... instead of a normal open. Of course, if you add all the protocols, rn will probably exceed your address space. :-) > ...Also, for smaller machines that >forward news, it would be less CPU time (decompress-store-compress-send >turns into store-send) But only if you compress articles one at a time. Most news is compressed a batch at a time. > 2) A means to use your own pager with rn. It gets real tiring to >hit u (as in less) to back up and suddenly realize you just unsubscribed to >the silly group. Also, my machine doesn't trap ^B, it core dumps. This is not likely to happen, if for no other reason than that the original reason I wrote rn was to get away from starting up a process on every article. My sentiments are that if you want that, you want readnews. On the other hand, I'm sort of a reasonable guy, so I'll throw out an idea that might or might not be what you want. Set -i=1 and any -h switches so you get a minimal header. Define yourself a macro that works something like this: \040 %(%m!=[p]? :!%{PAGER} %A^Jj) That is, if you hit space in pager mode, invoke your pager on the article and then junk the article. If you wanted to strip the header off the front, you'd either have to hack a % interplation into intrp.c that returned the number of header lines, or use the %B value that gives the header size in bytes, perhaps with the tail program. Note that the speed of the ! command is sensitive to the value of SHELL. Note also that the article will be junked every time you exit the pager, and you'll have to exit the pager before typing commands like 'r' and 'f'. If you don't want to go that far, you can at least disable the u command at the pager level with a macro, or ask for confirmation. If your machine core dumps when you type ^B because it just doesn't like ^Bs, there's nothing I can do about that. If, however, it dumps because rn isn't handling backpage right on your machine, I'd like to know why. You can disable the ^B as well if it causes you grief. On a brighter note, you'll be able to implement things like back half a page in the next rn because I'm going to put in a way to temporarily suppress output within a macro. > 3) An automated mechanism for expire. Something that detected that >no-one on the machine reads a given group so expire it in <parameter> days. Not my jurisdiction. I try to stay away from matters expirational. > 4) More user control. I keep seeing messages like "I can't do xxx >and my system adminstrator won't help me". Having been in both positions, I haven't the foggiest idea how to do this with both equity and security. > As far as copyright notices, would it be better to license the >software? Something like: ... I don't see how this would accomplish anything other than filling up my already full mailbox. If a copyright doesn't scare the ratfinks, I doubt that an easily forged and easily lost license agreement will do any better. And the people who are unhappy about the copyright will probably be unhappier about the license. Larry Wall {allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall