bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (01/31/89)
I'm most unsure whether or not this is the right group for this, uucp
discussions seem to abound in many groups. Please point me to the right
spot if this isn't it.
One of the frustrating things about HoneyDanBer uucp, for me, is the very
poor documentation available for it. I had it with the PC 6300 PLUS and
I have it with AT&T 386 UNIX, but in no case was the documentation clear
enough to pound through my thick skull. I have come by a rather complete
package of documentation, I forget where I got it (honest!), but I don't
know if it's legal to contribute it to the net, much less where to post it
if it is legal. There are no copyright notices and there is no source
code in it, just man pages and installation discussion. There is, for
example, one of the clearest discussions of the Permissions file I have
seen anywhere.
So here are my questions - Would it be legal for me to post this doc
package? If so, what is the appropriate newsgroup? Finally, is anyone
interested in seeing it? I have pushed it all through troff and JetRoff
and run it off on an HP Laser Jet and it's easy to read and pleasing to the
eye. It should be as useful through nroff. I have mailed it (in all
innocence) to several sites, but it would be more efficient if it was sent
via netnews. If I'm not supposed to have it, I would appreciate an
explanation of why I shouldn't, since I have several binary licenses for HDB,
just no helpful documentation. Thanks for the enlightenment, and excuse the
wrong group if I did that.
--
Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COMbill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (02/01/89)
In article <1132@ssbn.WLK.COM> I wrote: [ I said I had HDB man pages and documentation and had been mailing it, I wanted to know if it's OK to post ] > So here are my questions - Would it be legal for me to post this doc > package? I have gotten replies from very reliable sources that it is neither legal for me to post it, nor is it legal for me to have it and it was not legal for me to mail it to the sites who asked for it. Well, I can't put the rain back in the sky, but I can stop doing something that I wouldn't have in the first place, had I known better. I was not joshing about not being sure where it came from and there certainly weren't any proprietary markings on it, so I asked in good faith. Now, in good faith, I'll remove it from my system. I have declined to send it to people who requested it after I found out that it's still AT&T intellectual property and will do the same for any requests on the way. I'd have cancelled the article, but I had already gotten a number of replies, so I thought that would have been ineffectual. Sorry folks, I didn't know any better, thanks to those who enlightened me. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) (02/02/89)
In article <1133@ssbn.WLK.COM> bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >[ I said I had HDB man pages and documentation and had been mailing it, > I wanted to know if it's OK to post ] [...] >Now, in good faith, I'll remove >it from my system. I have declined to send it to people who requested it >after I found out that it's still AT&T intellectual property and will do >the same for any requests on the way. Ok, what about the people who, in good faith, purchased something purported to contain HDB uucp and did not receive this part of the product? Les Mikesell
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (02/02/89)
>In article <1133@ssbn.WLK.COM> I wrote: [ doc & man pages are proprietary, I stopped sending them, "in good faith" ] In article <7593@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >Ok, what about the people who, in good faith, purchased something purported >to contain HDB uucp and did not receive this part of the product? I would have mailed but Les asked a question that probably was asked by several others. I don't think the answer is all that obvious. I can't answer Les' question directly. I have four binary licenses for HDB and the documentation I described (except for printed man pages) wasn't included with any of them. I'll conclude from that that the doc I had is included with a version of HDB that I didn't purchase. I'll speculate that it is included with the source license and that the proprietary markings I didn't see were part of the license I don't have. I don't think that the binary license vendors omitted the documentation, I don't think it's supposed to be distributed to a binary licensee, i.e. "this part of the product" is not part of what we purchased. Should I have figured that out before I started the stir? Probably, but I didn't, and I'm sorry for the stir. -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
mml@srhqla.UUCP (Michael Levin) (02/03/89)
In article <7593@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > >Ok, what about the people who, in good faith, purchased something purported >to contain HDB uucp and did not receive this part of the product? > There are two books available from Nutshell publications. One is called 'Managing UUCP and USENET' and the other is 'Using UUCP and USENET'. I have found the info in these two books to be the finest explanations of the various files in the HDB uucp world. At least that's my opinion. And my email and netnews works GREAT! Mike Levin -- +----+ P L E A S E R E S P O N D T O: +------+-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | Mike Levin, Silent Radio HeadQuarters, Los Angeles (srhqla) | No room for a * | Path:{aeras|csun|pacbell|pyramid|telebit}!srhqla!levin |'snappy remark'* +-------------------------------------------------------------+-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*