eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (03/21/91)
Recently I've seen a number of postings attacking the Jargon File project as overly commercial or an `ego trip', and email posing polite questions about the copyright status of the material and future access to it. This posting will summarize the history of the project, describe the present legal status of the material, the arrangements for disposition of royalties, and the reasoning behind the actions I have taken to set these up. HISTORY This all started a little more than a year ago (Jan 1990) when I snarfed a copy of jargon-1 off uunet. I'd seen versions of the File before, as far back as late 1976 when I was a turist on the ITS machines. It was very stimulating at the time, and I'd had a sentimental fondness for it ever since then. Somehow it'd been there in my consciousness for more than ten years without it ever occuring to me that I could or should add stuff to it. Of course, when I first saw it it was a lot closer to current and I but a mere fledgling as a hacker. But there it was, sitting in an EMACS window... So I started adding a couple entries as a casual weekend hack. Then I really got into it as I realized how *much* of the slang I'd come to take for granted wasn't represented in there. Before I knew it, I had doubled the size of the file (it wasn't very large; less than 250 entries). Clearly it was time to talk to someone and get these changes made `official'. Guy L. Steele was listed as the east coast maintainer, so I tracked down his phone number and gave him a buzz. Guy was friendly and supportive. First thing he did was send me a copy of the first paper edition of the file, his `The Hacker's Dictionary' (Steele-1983; the First Edition). We agreed to work together on updating the file for 1990. He set up a jargon alias on think.com to reflect mail to him and myself; the idea was that he would continue as `official' maintainer, I would coordinate a set of revisions, we'd announce it to the world in a couple weeks and then I'd go on to other things. It was some time --- like, more than a month and two rounds of draft posting and response collection later --- that the idea for a book first came up. Guy suggested it, explaining that an editor at MIT had been after him for years to do a second edition. I thought this was a fine idea, a suitable way to get the File to a lot of people without net access. I wasn't anticipating royalties (I figured they'd be miniscule anyhow, the first book hadn't been a market success) and assumed that Guy would continue to be listed as principal author. All I asked for was a `second billing' credit for the revisions (at this point I had less than a hundred hours invested in the work). Guy mumbled something about putting the editor in touch with me and we dropped the matter. It lay there for quite a while. Shortly after this I initiated the jargon-friends list to include the other First Edition coauthors (Richard Frankel, Mark Crispin, Don Woods, and Geoff Goodfellow). Five responded encouragingly to the initial list ping. To our later sorrow, none of us registered the fact that I got no response from Mark Cripin (the address I'd been given turned out to lead to a black hole). As I went through successive rounds of revision, it became clear that there was enormous `pent-up demand' for a File revision. The volume of entries and supportive mail coming in was *huge*. The file tripled, then quadrupled in size. The revision work began to cut seriously into my time. The revision had acquired a life of its own. Sometime in there Guy and I decided to move the jargon alias to my site, snark, because think.com had been flaking out and bouncing or dropping a lot of mail. I guess it was shortly after this that we both confronted the fact that fact that, without really intending to, I had taken over as the maintainer and contact person for the File. It was not until after this, in the early winter of 1990 (sometime shortly before I posted 2.1.5), that the idea of a book began to seriously affect the direction of the project. Three publishers got wind of the project through various channels and approached me. After a couple of weeks of negotiation I agreed to work with MIT Press. There were several factors in this. The most important (to me) was that MIT press, alone of the three, was willing to guarantee that I could do the book on-line and via email, typesetting the book myself and avoiding hassle with infinite rounds of paper galleys. Guy's recommendation also helped; Terry Ehling, the project editor I was negotiating with, was the person who'd been pushing for revision 2 all along and they were friendly. And, in general, it seemed clear to me that MIT Press wanted the book the most, and consciously enjoyed a special relationship with the community it is meant to serve. These were sufficient discriminants. The cherry on top was that they were offering better royalty rates than either of the other two suitors! By this point I'd put in hundreds of hours of work on the project and the thought of actually realizing some income from it in lieu of the consulting fees I could have been earning was beginning to look attractive. By mid-December we'd settled on contract terms and I was learning TeX. I still hadn't formulated a proposal to the First Edition authors on how credit and royalties should be handled, but nobody else had either! Everybody then on the list was cooperative and relaxed and I felt willing to live with any consensus that might emerge. The work clearly seemed to all of us to be more important than arguing about the proceeds. Then we hit the first serious bump in the road --- Mark Crispin. MRC surfaced in alt.folklore.computers, spewing flames at me for allegedly hijacking `his' File and not consulting any of the First Edition authors about the revisions. This piqued me more than somewhat, because as far as I knew at the time he'd simply been directing my requests for feedback on the jargon-friends lists to /dev/null. I threatened to drop him from the list unless he showed some willingness to match his public criticisms with contributions where the work was going on --- only to discover that he'd never received anything from jargon-friends. Unfortunately, this exchange set the tone for most of our subsequent communications. Also, in mid-December, I began to catch some heat from a cabal of ex-ITSers inflamed by rumors that I was `revising history' and contaminating the vital bodily fluids of true hackerdom (as represented by its holy untouchable icon, the One True and Only jargon-1). Most of these people quited down after I posted an open letter setting out the facts of the matter and my intentions; a few became friendly participants in the revision process. Not till January of this year did we on jargon-friends seriously address the whole copyrights and royalties thing. I proposed a formula under which a portion of royalties would be pro-rated to the First Edition authors based on an average of the ratios of the old and new entry counts and the old and new word sizes; reaction was generally favorable (two of the six voters, in fact, expressed a willingness to just trust me to do the right thing without a formal agreement --- we'd been working together for months and there'd been time for considerable mutual respect to develop). MRC, who had just begun to participate in the list, opposed the formula and insisted on a formal vote (our first). The motion passed with only his single dissent. A motion endorsing the credits policy I proposed passed by a similarly lopsided vote. These, apparently, are the experiences MRC refers to in his recent claim to have been ``shouted down''. Me, I recall all parties in the business as having been quite graceful and civilized, with one exception... Since then, MRC hasn't called for any more votes, preferring to flame me in public on a.f.c. To give him his due, though, he *has* finally coughed up a set of substantive changes for the File, which I am using. In mid-January I flew to Boston on the Press's tab, finally met Guy face to face, and he and I and RMS and the Press people sealed our bargain over pot-stickers at Mary Chung's. Guy and I signed an agreement which set out a royalty pro-rating formula and transferred the copyright in Steele-1983 to me. And that brings us nearly up to the present. Five jargon-friends members and I have been working harmoniously to finish the book, with only occasional outbursts from MRC. New material, commentary, and support has continued to roll in; fortunately, the volume of actual submissions has tapered off some. The manuscript freeze will go down on April 10; the book is well on track to be finished by then and will go to press this summer. DISTRIBUTION POLICY Throughout the revision process I have been at pains to open it up to as many people as possible, even though this enormously multiplied the amount of work for me to do. Indeed, some are now suggesting that I over-exposed the material, flooding the net and engaging in some sort of ego trip. Thank you; I'd rather be accused of this than take flames from a hundred Crispinoids accusing me of ravishing the File in secret and excluding people from consultation. After my brief flap with the ex-ITS crowd, is there anybody who seriously doubts this would have happened if I'd played the cards much closer to my chest? At the same time, I felt it would be a profound disservice to the net to encourage the huge volume and nth-order flame wars that would have ensued if I'd invited all submitters to post to a.f.c. Not to mention the justified annoyance a.f.c regulars would have felt at seeing everything non-Jargon get lost in the noise... So: the cover note for every draft asks people to mail submissions and comment to me. I try to respond to every contribution, and I post drafts frequently so submitters can see that ``justice has been done'' and give me a fair argument if I haven't addressed their concerns. This policy will continue up to the freeze deadline. COPYRIGHT STATUS GLS copyrighted the text of Steele-1983, which is largely now incorportated into the File. We have signed an agreement which transfers the Steele-1983 copyright to me. Thus, I have clear legal title to any book version, or any `derived work' incorporating substantial material from it. I had to do this so I could make a legal contract with MIT Press. The copyright status of the on-line version itself is murky. There is no copyright notice on it. I think this means that you can mung it as you like but not publish it in any way that would infringe the book copyright. In a practical sense, that's how I want things to stand. The only change in policy I might make is to formally assert a `compilation copyright' on 2.8.1 over a note explaining that this has been done on behalf of the friends of the Jargon File, to protect it from abuse by persons not legally and ethically in contract with myself and the First Edition authors. Such a notice, if added, would explicitly grant the right to modify and circulate versions of the file as long as the credits and copright notice are preserved, and some indication made that the version has been changed. ROYALTIES AND COMMERCIAL ``EXPLOITATION'' Just to make it crystal clear, everybody: THIS PROJECT WAS NOT STARTED FOR MONEY ...and I'd still be doing it if there were no money in it. I made it a condition of my negotiations with all three publishers that approached me that they not interfere with the free on-line distribution of the text (it still surprises me that all three agreed). I'm giving away most of my work for free by posting the on-line version; if you purchase the book, you're buying the value-added from nicely typesetting the material (and from my Preface and GLS's Foreword and cartoons). I started the on-line revision as a service to hackerdom, and I'm still doing it because I want the work to be well done. I've explained above that the book was Guy Steele's idea, and that I had no serious thought of monetary gain until well after I was personally committed to the project. Having signed the contract and accepted responsibility for the book, however, I do insist on my right to enjoy compensation for the hundreds of hours I have spent preparing the material for book publication. If you disagree, just don't buy the book! The on-line version will always be out there. Despite some recent claims, I haven't ``rejected'' the idea of tithing book royalties to LPF, as I think RMS will certify. In fact, it is a matter of record that I offered to match with a share from my own percentage any assignment of royalties by any First Edition coauthor to LPF. So far nobody's taken me up on that. What I *have* refused to do, on principle, is commit myself to sending LPF money as a way of buying off opposition from people who don't think I have a right to make any money at all from the work I've put in. THE FUTURE Someday, I expect to hand the evolving file to a third editor and retire to the `elder statesman' role Guy Steele has now. One reason I've been careful about agreements and copyright and building a consensus on policy is that I want to make the revision job both feasible and rewarding for that editor. I want to be able to hand off more than just ``apostolic succession'' and clear legal publication rights to the material; I want to hand that person a tradition (expressed in my copyright assignment and the documented history of the project) about how to meet the high standards of quality and fairness that Guy set in producing Steele-1983, and which I have tried to push even further. On behalf of that person, and others who genuinely love hackerdom and want to serve it, I ask all of you: don't cut us off from the market, and don't accuse us of `egotism' for bending over backward to do a hard job under public scrutiny. If these kinds of attack succeed, they only guarantee that projects of concern to the net will be done out of its sight --- or not done at all. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com
oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) (03/22/91)
In article <1Zr0DW#37lgky6bXgdD31jqNy1Gg95B=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >Thus, I have clear legal >title to any book version, or any `derived work' incorporating >substantial material from it. I had to do this so I could make a >legal contract with MIT Press. This is understood, and reasonable. The next few lines are not meant to question your right to assert such a copyright at some point. >The copyright status of the on-line version itself is murky. There is >no copyright notice on it. I do not know if it is necessarily that murky. We know with certainity that the so-called jargon-1 (on-line version) is in the public domain. After you started your changes and additions, you have released each new version with references to "public trust" and "your document", and which, in my interpretation, did not indicate a change in its original status. I further believe the manner in which this jargon work was carried out takes away any applicability of the "invisible" portion of the Geneva copyright convention. To be sure, I would not have paid much attention to this little detail at all, if it weren't for the statements like the one below. >The only change in policy I might make is to formally assert a >`compilation copyright' on 2.8.1 over a note explaining that this has >been done on behalf of the friends of the Jargon File, to protect it >from abuse by persons not legally and ethically in contract with >myself and the First Edition authors. I believe it is legally reasonable to view the versions of the Jargon file thus far posted/distributed without a copyright as a Public Domain document, or to put it simply, "our document". If I am wrong in this assessment, I would like a proper public explanation, as soon as possible, so that we may assess any legal implications of our use, abuse or alternate-editing of (at least) some versions of the jargon file. oz --- Not all good things come with three | internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca pages of dogma and an attitude. - anon | uucp: utzoo/utai!yunexus!oz
tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (03/25/91)
One thing's for sure: The jargon file that can be copyrighted is not the True Jargon File.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) (03/25/91)
In article <1ZtF0O#754Tp97th6rb6mgr9j5k5BVG=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes: >for a grand total of 2972 blocks (and that's before we start on the talk >groups!). If the net is willing to tolerate *this* cruft every day, a >Jargon File reposting every two weeks is bupkes. You are crossposting into the comp tree, which is one part of the USENET heirarchy that people =do= tend to carry, even when they don't carry all of alt, talk, or soc. As a counter example to your argument that waste justifies more waste, here is alt on this machine - % du /usr/spool/news/alt | sort -n | tail -10 14 /usr/spool/news/alt/activism 14 /usr/spool/news/alt/config 46 /usr/spool/news/alt/security 84 /usr/spool/news/alt/sys/sun 86 /usr/spool/news/alt/sys 94 /usr/spool/news/alt/sources/d 1132 /usr/spool/news/alt/sources 1914 /usr/spool/news/alt/folklore/computers 1916 /usr/spool/news/alt/folklore 3222 /usr/spool/news/alt % ls -lR /usr/spool/news/talk /usr/spool/news/talk not found % du /usr/spool/news/soc | sort -n | tail -10 4 /usr/spool/news/soc/culture/celtic 8 /usr/spool/news/soc/culture/german 14 /usr/spool/news/soc/culture 16 /usr/spool/news/soc Clearly every system on USENET does not agree with your assessment that soc, talk, and alt.sex.pictures are very valuable items to be carried by everyone. There are quite a few major corporations (AT&T to name just one) that don't carry large portions of alt (I believe AT&T doesn't carry =any= of alt). Many companies carry neither talk nor soc. There are more efficient ways of distributing the "Jargon" file which don't involve posting every entry every time. To contrast your behavior against source postings, it would be like posting the entire source to Elm or Perl every other week when posting context diffs would be more efficient. What do the maintainers of Elm and Perl do? They post diffs. What does Eric do? He re-posts the entire object. You choose to crosspost to comp.misc just so you can get the distribution. I am sending a note to my newsfeed requesting that I no longer receive comp.misc. I encourage others who are tired of seeing their systems abused to do the same. -- John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "I've never written a device driver, but I have written a device driver manual" -- Robert Hartman, IDE Corp.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (03/26/91)
In article <19119@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: > You choose to crosspost to comp.misc just so you can get the distribution. > I am sending a note to my newsfeed requesting that I no longer receive > comp.misc. I encourage others who are tired of seeing their systems abused > to do the same. Talking about horses and barn doors... you held off doing this until the final jargon file release (announced as such ahead of time... the intermediate ones didn't get sent to comp.misc... and as a result *I* at least never saw them). -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
woodsb@helios.ecn.purdue.edu (Brent L. Woods) (03/26/91)
In article <19119@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes: > >To contrast your behavior against source postings, it would be like >posting the entire source to Elm or Perl every other week when posting >context diffs would be more efficient. What do the maintainers of Elm >and Perl do? They post diffs. What does Eric do? He re-posts the >entire object. He's frequently justified. I can remember one case where Mr. Raymond *explicitly* stated that the diffs were larger than the file itself. Tell me, in that case, which would you have him post? I've kept copies of most of the versions of the Jargon file (all the ones since 2.1.5, in fact), and there have been enough difference between the major revisions (the second digit) that I easily believe that the diffs were close to the file in size. Either diffs or the whole file, I really doubt that it would have made much difference. Everyone keeps prattling on and on about posting diffs instead of the file, but no one has ever mentioned the possible size of the diffs. -- Brent Woods INTERNET: woodsb@gn.ecn.purdue.edu USNAIL: 2818 S. Sunrise Dr. / New Palestine, IN 46163 PHONE: +1 (317) 861-4844 (voice)
eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) (03/26/91)
In <21072488@bfmny0.BFM.COM> Tom Neff wrote: > One thing's for sure: > > The jargon file that can be copyrighted is not the True Jargon File. Would you believe that several email messages have actually urged me to do this? I've been fairly neutral on the question, myself; apparently there's some feeling out there that copyright is needed to protect the File from potential future abuses by the unscrupulous. -- Eric S. Raymond = eric@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (03/27/91)
>Talking about horses and barn doors... you held off doing this until the final >jargon file release (announced as such ahead of time... the intermediate ones >didn't get sent to comp.misc... and as a result *I* at least never saw them). I don't think there's much doubt that a lot of people are interested in this work, nor that a lot of time and effort was put into it. As such, I'm not much opposed to posting it with the wider distribution, particularly when compared to the vast volumes of drek on the net as a whole. Then there's the people like me -- people who earned the name "hacker" before it became fasionable -- who find the new jargon file to be a waste of valuable disk space, the very antithesis of what it describes. But then I'm pretty much in a tiny minority.... :-) <csg>
greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) (04/01/91)
/* <19119@rpp386.cactus.org> by jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
* In article <1ZtF0O#754Tp97th6rb6mgr9j5k5BVG=eric@snark.thyrsus.com> eric@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
* >for a grand total of 2972 blocks (and that's before we start on the talk
* >groups!). If the net is willing to tolerate *this* cruft every day, a
* >Jargon File reposting every two weeks is bupkes.
*
* You are crossposting into the comp tree, which is one part of the USENET
* heirarchy that people =do= tend to carry, even when they don't carry all
* of alt, talk, or soc. As a counter example to your argument that waste
* justifies more waste, here is alt on this machine -
[Statistics deleted ]
John, you're taking things out of context again and switching the argument
to suit your point of view.
* Clearly every system on USENET does not agree with your assessment that
* soc, talk, and alt.sex.pictures are very valuable items to be carried
* by everyone.
You did it again. NOWHERE did he state that they were valuable items;
he only stated that they take up lots of space. I agree that the last one
is the biggest waste of net.bandwidth ever to hit. I think I rmgroup'd it
here...
* There are quite a few major corporations (AT&T to name just one) that
* don't carry large portions of alt (I believe AT&T doesn't carry =any= of
* alt). Many companies carry neither talk nor soc.
Pity.
*
* There are more efficient ways of distributing the "Jargon" file which don't
* involve posting every entry every time. To contrast your behavior against
* source postings, it would be like posting the entire source to Elm or Perl
* every other week when posting context diffs would be more efficient. What
* do the maintainers of Elm and Perl do? They post diffs. What does Eric
* do? He re-posts the entire object.
Okay, so he reposts. Can you read, John? He says that it's *probably* *the*
*last* *distribution* *to* *receive* *a* *full* *posting*, and that *future*
*postings* *will* *appear* *as* *context* *diffs*.
*
* You choose to crosspost to comp.misc just so you can get the distribution.
So what's wrong with that!? He chooses to take a route to achieve some sig-
nificant distribution and you decide to cut him off? (see below)
* I am sending a note to my newsfeed requesting that I no longer receive
* comp.misc. I encourage others who are tired of seeing their systems abused
* to do the same.
Abused? I consider my system abused when megabytes of unwanted mail traffic
goes through. News? It's news. We feed, we are fed. No big deal.
And as far as your "encouragement" (which reeks of a closed mind, BTW!),
I think you're just a bit slow on the draw. If you were going to do this,
you should have done it when the file was posted for the second time.
You're locking the barn door after your only horse has been stolen.
* --
* John F. Haugh II | Distribution to | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
* Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) | Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
* "I've never written a device driver, but I have written a device driver manual"
* -- Robert Hartman, IDE Corp.
wcs) (04/02/91)
In article <3461@unisoft.UUCP> greywolf@unisoft.UUCP (The Grey Wolf) writes:
]/* <19119@rpp386.cactus.org> by jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
] * There are quite a few major corporations (AT&T to name just one) that
] * don't carry large portions of alt (I believe AT&T doesn't carry =any= of
] * alt). Many companies carry neither talk nor soc.
First of all, AT&T does carry alt. Our news gurus have negotiated
with management about what we can and cannot carry, and the primary
exceptions are talk.bizarre, *.flame, alt.sex.*, and alt.drugs.
We also have Internet access.
Is the Jargon File available by FTP anywhere? Eric periodically
sends me mail replies saying yes, it's on trix.ai.mit.edu!/pub/jargon,
but it's not there. I've noticed some errors go by, and I'd really
rather FTP the whole mess rather than assemble the pieces on my news
server and then ftp them to my home machine.
It's not tough to set up mail servers, like netlib or whatever Larry
Wall uses. Perhaps a simpler approach, if Eric or some kind person
has a spare account, to use the vacation-reply program to say
foo.bar.edu!jargon has gone.fission.
The Jargon File, Chapter 0:
.......
I'd do it, but I'm not root here, and they haven't got my Ethernet
connection installed for my exciting new Sun386i yet.
--
Pray for peace; Bill
# Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ
"Don't Use Racist or Sexist Language" - Political Correctness Police Slogan
"Let's Beat Up That African-American" - Los Angeles Police Department Slogan