brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (06/21/89)
You folks sure had a lot to say. Can't a guy get any rest while he's at USENIX? Anyway, to answer the various points brought up: o) Can ClariNet use the B news software? That's been pretty well answered on the net, but I will add that even if I couldn't, I will probably switch to C news, TMN or my own software, pretty much eliminating that question. o) Isn't this unfair capitalization on the fine free efforts of the people who built USENET? Dunno. Is posting a help wanted ad or job wanted ad in in misc.jobs abuse of USENET? A request for info on how to write a device driver for your job? In fact, I'm using the B news file format for ClariNet articles to help USENET sites, not exploit them. Would anybody suggest that I define a new format, and have all the customers install new software just so that they can run two incompatible electronic newsreading systems? The whole idea is to put the news in a format that all you folks already know how to deal with -- that's for your benefit, and indirectly mine, in that doing things that are good for you helps me get customers. o) Will ClariNet take resources and effort away from USENET? I don't think so, and in fact it might even be the reverse. Many people have asked, "how can I get my bosses to let me hook up our site to usenet?" ClariNet might be an answer because it gives a solid benefit even CFOs can understand. Hooking up to ClariNet will let you establish USENET news and email links at the same time, perhaps more easily in terms of company politics. So ClariNet may legitimize USENET at many firms, and thus help it grow. o) Aren't you running down USENET by using the term "netnoise?" Hey, I didn't invent that term. Neither, I think, does anybody deny that it characterizes many groups. And many people even like that. I like anarchy myself, but it's not the only thing in the world that I like, nor the only way to distributed information. I want to see USENET and ClariNet both thrive, side-by-side. USENET matches other networks and online services blow for blow when it comes to electronic conferences & email. (except when it comes to reliability on the email) But electronic publishing was something that USENET just couldn't do, and I feel that I'm adding something here, not taking away. o) Will ClariNet turn USENET into a legal battleground? Copyrighted information does always bring this risk, whether it's a wireservice or a message that says "you may only redistribute this if..." on the end. But if there are problems, it will come because of the thieves. I don't actually own the copyrights on any of the current ClariNet stuff, so I won't be doing much enforcing. On the other hand, if you feel like stealing from a wireservice company, I can't imagine much that could be dumber. Of course, pirated wire articles have appeared on USENET before, and many netters have other access to them -- I'm not bringing in anything new in this case. It is my fervent hope that there will not be any piracy that I can't deal with. I think that's the case because it's the kind of piracy you can't do in secret -- you have to do it on an ongoing basis, and it has to be done in a semi-public manner. It's not like pirating a program that you hide on a disk somewhere in your office. This should make it easy for me to find and cut-off pirates if they try anything. Without resorting to the final straw of the legal system. o) Is non-free news software a violation of the USENET tradition? I don't think so. Lesk's UUCP, Honey DanBer UUCP, UNIX itself and many of the TCP/IP packages that are the very soul of USENET have been commercial software since the dawn of the net. Commercial packages for reading news on IBM PCs and other computers have been around for years. I saw a Mac package at USENIX. I'm hardly the first here! o) Will the Internet really allow electronic publishing? Here's my philosophy on the matter. If you subscribe to a publication from ClariNet, it's up to you to ship it to your machine. You pay the costs. You want to dial up a feed point via modem? Fine. You want to install a leased line to a feed point? Fine. You want to use your valid internet access to pick it up? I think that's fine too. You're doing the "shipping," and paying for it. Not me. The internet exists to let authorized users get easier access to the information and facilities that they want to get. You will be the one using the internet to make it easier to pick up the information, not me. And if you're authorized to use the internet, then that's what it's for. It's similar to (for example) connecting to a supercomputer that you buy time on by TELNET. The TELNET is there to make it easier for you to use the for-pay service. And I can't think of a better definition of "information desired by an internet user" than "what they're willing to pay actual $$ for." -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473