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)
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
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
pedz@bobkat.UUCP (02/20/87)
Another point is that if BMCo takes software out of the public domain, packages it nicely for CompputerX, and then sells it. I could buy a copy of it, make copies of it, and sell it at distribution cost (assuming they did not add anything to the package). Last, is the fact that BMCo can take a piece of software that is copyright but free to distribute, do the exact same thing, and still sell it since the customer will be "paying" for the disk, support, and the glossy books. If the original author got really provoked, the only thing he could do is perhaps force BMCo to distribute two disks of software. One the customer would "pay" for and the other will come along in the package for "free". -- Perry Smith pedz@bobkat {ti-csl,infotel}!pollux!bobkat!pedz