tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (07/30/90)
This is part of an ad that appears in Program Now, a UK based programming magazine: MINIX Run a Unix Type System For only $87.75 A unix type multi-tasking, multi-user system that will run on IBM clones or Atari ST. Including printouts and patches from USENET. The Minix Centre Forncett-End Nr Norwich Norfolk. Several things disturb me about this. Firstly does this company have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing? Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The trouble is I don't see any way to stop them. Tony
kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) (07/31/90)
I don't mind if anybody uses my postings for personal use, and I also don't mind if they use them in some business, as long as they are not directly profiting from my work. (That is - if they just use the Minix operating system to do other work, this is just fine.) I am really upset that somebody would have the gall to re-sell my postings and profit from them. Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or re-sold by any party, any time, or any place. In the United States, a person holds a copyright on any material he writes, whether or not he registers that material with the copyright office, and this copyright protects him against others profiting from his work. I can't believe that the laws in Great Britain are very much different. If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America, South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this company in Great Britain. ---------------------------------------------------------------- (c) Copyright Kenneth J. Hendrickson, 1990 No part of this article may be sold, or printed in a publication which is sold, without the written permission of the author. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh
gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu (Gary Duzan) (07/31/90)
Just to throw a little fuel on the fire, is there any significant
philosophical difference in selling printed articles, selling disks full of
articles, and renting out time on a system for USENET access? In all three
cases the seller is making a profit off USENET info.
Gary Duzan
Time Lord
Third Regeneration
--
gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu
_o_ -------------------------- _o_
[|o o|] If you can square, round, or cube a number, why not sphere it? [|o o|]
|_O_| "Don't listen to me; I never do." -- Doctor Who |_O_|bob@lion.inmos.co.uk (Bob Green) (07/31/90)
In article <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > [stuff deleted] > >The Minix Centre >Forncett-End Nr Norwich Norfolk. > > Several things disturb me about this. Firstly does this company >have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing? >Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The >trouble is I don't see any way to stop them. > Tony You are right to be worried. However, I think in this case I would like to point out a few things. I purchased my copy of Minix-ST from the Minix Centre. It arrived in under 24 hours. I paid about 90 pounds (sterling) for it, which is the same (I think) as Prentice Hall. Since I bought Minix-ST, I have received several newsletters from the Minix Centre, detailing new software for Minix and information about whats going on in the (Usenet) world of Minix. It seems to me that the Minix Centre, while charging for their services, are actually providing a valuable service to those people less fortunate than ourselves who do not have access to Usenet. While I don't like the idea of them making a profit out of the contents of this newsgroup, I am glad that the stuff that gets posted here is able to get to people without net access. Share and enjoy -Bob | Bob Green Inmos Ltd, Bristol | EMail(UK) ukc!inmos!bob |---------------------------------------| or bob@inmos.co.uk |The opinions above are my personal | Internet: bob@inmos.com |views and do not reflect Inmos policy. | UUCP:(US) uunet!inmos.com!bob
tgcpwd@rc3.urc.tue.nl (Wim van Dorst/Prof. Penninger) (07/31/90)
In article <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: >[ text deleted ] Do they >have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing? >Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The >trouble is I don't see any way to stop them. Don't make such a remark when you don't read all the info |-( They _do_ have the proper permission for doing what they do. Why, even in a recent Information Sheet by Glen Overby they are listed as legitimate place to purchase your copy of Minix for the proper price, which happens to be indeed $87.75. If there is any posting recommended to be read it is the monthly information sheet (or the updates on it). Very good stuff to keep up on the latest official steps (releases and the such). Secondly they should not be stopped, but encouraged to do the good work they do, which is helping new Minixers with real help. If it needs using items from the Net, let it be so. In many countries around the world all kind of Minix User Groups are being formed (NL, UK, OZ, US, D, FR), which exactly that kind of work. Compliments to them. (For more information on these please contact info@minixug.hobby.nl) -b-b- -- Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim 'Blue Baron' van Dorst ----------------------------------------------------------- baron@wiesje.mug.hobby.nl and tgcpwd@urc.tue.nl
andrew@eleceng.bradford.ac.uk (Andrew G. Minter) (07/31/90)
> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 22:44:44 GMT > From: "Kenneth J. Hendrickson" <kjh@EDU.USC.POLLUX> > > Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I > will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or > re-sold by any party, any time, or any place. This sounds like a good idea and I agree with you. However, all sites here have to pay to receive USENET news, so where exactly do you draw the line. I think I can see where it is, but I don't know how you would tie it up in legal terms. > If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict > distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America, > South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss > off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this > company in Great Britain. Please, please don't do this: 1. I'm not at all convinced that these people are doing anything strictly illegal (although I'm disturbed at the prices they seem to be charging for "free" software, especially GNU stuff). 2. I would not get the postings, which would indeed "piss me off". 3. The Minix Centre could almost certainly get the postings by buying a fast modem and spending a little money. One service these people provide is to pass on all the goodies to people, mostly computer amatuers, without network access. While I'm concerned that they may be making a little to much money out of this it would be a shame if the service vanished completely. As an alternative, how about somebody offering to send out postings regularly on floppies for a nominal handling charge? Cheers, Andrew -- ############################################################################## # Andrew G. Minter, # JANET: andrew@brad.eeng # # Lecturer in Information Systems, # EARN/BITNET: andrew@eeng.brad.ac.uk # # Dept. of Electrical Engineering, # # # University of Bradford, # Phone: +44.274.733466 ext 347 or 326 # # Bradford, West Yorkshire, BD7 1DP # Telex: 51309 UNIBFD G # # United Kingdom # Fax: +44.274.305340 # ##############################################################################
ghelmer@dsuvax.uucp (Guy Helmer) (07/31/90)
In <26149@nigel.udel.EDU> gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu (Gary Duzan) writes: > Just to throw a little fuel on the fire, is there any significant >philosophical difference in selling printed articles, selling disks full of >articles, and renting out time on a system for USENET access? In all three >cases the seller is making a profit off USENET info. IMHO, if offered for a reasonably low fee, it is OK for a person or organization to put USENET articles on disk or paper for sale. For those of us on USENET, we (or our companies) have put out a lot of money for equipment that allows us to read and contribute to news, besides paying the daily cost of sending/receiving news. For those without USENET access (because they can't afford equipment or a news feed), it seems reasonable to give them information at a price. Because of USENET's availability, there is no reason someone else could not offer a competitive service at a lower price. Competetion among for-profit companies would naturally keep the fee for copies reasonably low. I also echo the question about the difference between making a profit off 1) selling time on a machine to allow access to USENET, and 2) selling a physical copy of USENET articles. I personally don't believe that there is a difference. Very privately held personal opinion follows (and don't bother flaming, this isn't a flame): I also believe that people who put copyright notices on their postings in an attempt to keep others from using articles for profit violate the "hacker ethic" and the "spirit of USENET"; I much prefer the GNU "copyleft" philosophy if it could be applied to USENET. > gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu -- Guy Helmer ...!bigtex!loft386!dsuvax!ghelmer DSU Computing Services dsuvax!ghelmer@cs.utexas.edu, helmer@sdnet.bitnet Small is beautiful, but looks aren't everything...
HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen) (07/31/90)
In addition, I remember having read of a Sparc-based VMEbus board sold with a MINIX operating system. I don't know if its good, that commercial users begin to put their hands on MINIX. C.v.W.
HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen) (07/31/90)
well, about the Copyright: unlike in USA, you don't have a copyright if you dont explicitly add a copyright notice. This is true in many other countries. C.v.W.
eo@ansa.co.uk (Ed Oskiewicz) (08/01/90)
Dear *, I suppose we ought to figure out how much these guys are charging and what for before getting too hot under the collar - presumably they subscribe to the list so maybe they could tell us. After all a (modest) media only charge for making upgrades and useful goodies available to those who don't have the benefit of net access or employers or colleges paying their communications bills is reasonable (and a useful service). These guys also offer (I believe for a charge) FSF originated software so if they are parasiting (?) off our collective efforts then a lot of other people will be annoyed. The general question of preventing commercial exploitation from network distributed software will always be tricky because where can you draw the line?. Someone will always turn a quick quid (buck for our American cousins) even if it's only the phone company. But I do think that the suggestion to boycott the UK just to spite these people is a little hasty. Maybe we could make it a condition of this list that ANY form of commercial exploitation or misrepresentation of the source of the material be declared illegal immoral and fattening. But I believe we should allow and encourage reasonable media and labour charges so that MINIX is of benefit to users who are not fortunate enough to have network access. Ed Oskiewicz (eo@ansa.co.uk)
AJB%DLVH.DARESBURY.AC.UK@pucc.princeton.edu (08/01/90)
Kenneth J. Henrickson says > If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict > distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America, > South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss > off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this > company in Great Britain. Not very Anglophilic! I detest such use of the postings as much as anyone but it is the province of PH to take any action. Fortunately there are no vigilante judges in the UK. I suppose you'd restrict the postings to the UK if some American entrepreneur did the same? Alan Bleasby
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (08/01/90)
In article <26149@nigel.udel.EDU> gdtltr@freezer.it.udel.edu (Gary Duzan) writes: > > Just to throw a little fuel on the fire, is there any significant >philosophical difference in selling printed articles, selling disks full of >articles, and renting out time on a system for USENET access? In all three >cases the seller is making a profit off USENET info. > No diference to me. I think that anyone worrying about what someone does to a posting that they send out to ~20,000 sites and who knows how many people is losing sleep over nothing useful. If your pearls of wisdom are so valuable then you better not post them in the first place. Find a spot on some mountain and charge admission. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | D'Arcy Cain Consulting | MS-DOS: The Andrew Dice Clay West Hill, Ontario, Canada | of operating systems. + 416 281 6094 |
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/01/90)
I wrote a soft shareware program for the Amiga called "browser". After a while, I recieved mail from someone in Germany to the effect that someone was selling a disk that contained several such programs for more than the $5 that Fred Fish charges for his Amiga PD collection, with the implication that I should be horrified at his abuse of my work. I'm afraid that I disappointed this worthy gentleman, because I really didn't care. So long as the package stayed together so my begging letter was included, I didn't care if they required a 5 year indenture to get my code. I'd already by publishing it agreed to let anyone distribute it with no fee. I still fail to understand how something you've given away for free suddenly becomes valuable intellectual property when someone else finds they can sell it. All this does is give you a bigger audience. What's the big deal? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>
zseelunnon@qut.edu.au (08/01/90)
In article <26259@usc.edu>, kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: > I don't mind if anybody uses my postings for personal use, and I also > don't mind if they use them in some business, as long as they are not > directly profiting from my work. (That is - if they just use the Minix > operating system to do other work, this is just fine.) I am really > upset that somebody would have the gall to re-sell my postings and > profit from them. > > Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I > will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or > re-sold by any party, any time, or any place. > > In the United States, a person holds a copyright on any material he > writes, whether or not he registers that material with the copyright > office, and this copyright protects him against others profiting from > his work. I can't believe that the laws in Great Britain are very much > different. > > If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict > distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America, > South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss > off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this > company in Great Britain. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > (c) Copyright Kenneth J. Hendrickson, 1990 > No part of this article may be sold, or printed in a publication > which is sold, without the written permission of the author. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ken Hendrickson N8DGN/6 kjh@usc.edu ...!uunet!usc!pollux!kjh I see no reason that a centre set up for minix distribution cannot quite happily resell copies of minix bought through PH. !!!! This is almost certainly what the minix centre does. After all minix here can be bought through the UNI bookshop, is that really any difference. Ther is also nothing really to stop them from distributing information posted on the net for the price of the disk. I feel usenet is essentially a public access forum.... this is no different from you FORWARDING articles to your mate at the next terminal ???? oooh there will be flames :-) BOB ZSEELUNNON@qut.edu.au
steve@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Steve Yelvington) (08/01/90)
tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > >This is part of an ad that appears in Program Now, a UK based >programming magazine: > >MINIX > >Run a Unix Type System >For only $87.75 > >A unix type multi-tasking, multi-user system that will run on IBM clones >or Atari ST. > >Including printouts and patches from USENET. > > >The Minix Centre >Forncett-End Nr Norwich Norfolk. > > > Several things disturb me about this. Firstly does this company >have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing? >Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The >trouble is I don't see any way to stop them. > Tony Assuming the company is selling legal copies of Minix, I don't see what there is to get exercised about. Including the contents of this newsgroup is a helpful and positive move. It takes nothing away from anyone who reads or posts here. I don't see any complaints that the phone company makes money or the packet networks make money or the pay BBSes make money or the universities make money. It puzzles me when someone objects to further dissemination of free information on the basis that somebody might find their balance sheet enhanced by the process. --- steve@thelake.mn.org
dsmythe@netcom.UUCP (Dave Smythe) (08/01/90)
It seems that I've heard this discussion before. As I recall, the resolution of the discussion was that anything that is posted is in the public domain. This means that anyone can take your words and publish them for as much as they can get for them (which, incidentally, is - I think - one of the reasons for the GNU copyleft agreement, which is more restrictive of your rights as a purveyor of software than is PD. GNU allows selling GNU software but you have to give away the source, whereas you can copyright a PD program that you modify (I think) and sell it.) I think that there was some talk about some sites not being able to carry postings of people that have them copyrighted. I could be misremembering all of this... seems like that would make GNU software, not to mention the (some say vile) shareware that is posted occasionally, PD. What's the real answer, elder-netters? Dave Smythe dsmythe@netcom.UUCP
nick@ultima.cs.uts.oz (Nick Andrew) (08/01/90)
kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: >I don't mind if anybody uses my postings for personal use, and I also >don't mind if they use them in some business, as long as they are not >directly profiting from my work. (That is - if they just use the Minix >operating system to do other work, this is just fine.) I am really >upset that somebody would have the gall to re-sell my postings and >profit from them. I can't see how they are making profit from those patches if they sell for $87.95 _including_ MINIX! I imagine MINIX itself would cost about that much, so I rather doubt "The MINIX centre" is making any money by adding extra "patches from USENET". Second point: what have you got to do with the "patches" they "sell"? Are they your patches, your own personal postings? If this is so, and you value them so, why did you post them to the network in the first place? Give 26,000 people a copy of your creation without qualms, and you then worry if a few hundred more get it virtually bundled free with Minix? Third point: I suspect the "patches" referred to are Andy's 1.5 patches. They may include 'significant' program postings (like UUCP). Why don't we ask Andy what he thinks of the practice. >Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I >will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or >re-sold by any party, any time, or any place. I think if you do that you will find Prentice-Hall will forbid Andy to post further updates to the net. Now you wouldn't like that, would you? And if that happened, Minix would stagnate. Why? Because I think the regular update postings are what keep MINIX improving. It goes in a cycle: * People get MINIX, they find bugs, fix them, post them to the net * Andy collects the postings, eventually creates a new version, posts diffs * People download the diffs and apply them. They find the bugs and fix them and post to the net. Andy collects these fixes, updates his master and posts further updates. More people find bugs, the cycle repeats. Eventually Minix has been tested enough by the net to send to Prentice-Hall. * Net people upgrade to latest version (considerably before the rest) and they fix bugs / write new commands etc and post them to the net. I hope I'm not labouring the point here. Kill Andy's postings and limit other postings and MINIX stops improving. I think Andy is well aware of this fact, that the net is the Minix test bed. Imagine how you would feel still running MINIX 1.1. Consider that most of the major and minor improvements to MINIX made over the last 2-3 years are user-contributed. Imagine it all halting. >In the United States, a person holds a copyright on any material he >writes, whether or not he registers that material with the copyright >office, and this copyright protects him against others profiting from >his work. I can't believe that the laws in Great Britain are very much >different. Indeed, the US is a (recent) signatory to the Berne Convention, as is Australia and Great Britain. The author of the work holds copyright, whether it is registered or not and whether the (C) Copyright message appears or not. It does not mean that the work may not be redistributed, it means that the Author has the right to limit distribution, in which case there better be some text there stating that limitation. By posting your patch to comp.os.minix you are sending it to thousands of computers and thousands of users all over the world. You have no idea where your work has been sent. It has gone through gateways, onto disks, archive tapes, printouts, CD-ROM, etc.. Some of the systems your work passes through charge money for the specific purpose of accessing comp.os.minix. I.E. your work. If you can't handle that possibility (and the fact that in a pragmatic sense you have SFA control over who does what with your work), then don't post. And if you can handle it, then what is the difference between charging money for a USENET feed and charging money for USENET data some time after it has gone out over the net? >If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict >distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America, >South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss >off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this >company in Great Britain. That would be pretty stupid. Do you think this is only a British phenomenon? And technically infeasible, to boot. >---------------------------------------------------------------- >(c) Copyright Kenneth J. Hendrickson, 1990 >No part of this article may be sold, or printed in a publication >which is sold, without the written permission of the author. >---------------------------------------------------------------- Yawn ... I doubt anyone would buy it anyway. Nick. -- ACSnet: nick@ultima.cs.uts.oz UUCP: ...!uunet!munnari!ultima.cs.uts.oz!nick
ciancarini-paolo@cs.yale.edu (paolo ciancarini) (08/01/90)
I teach a Minix based course on Operating Systems at the University of Pisa. When I had some technical questions, I wrote to P-H Int. (here in USA), and they said to me to ask any more question to the UK Minix Center. So I presume that they at least know the existence of this center. P-H is not a software house; they simply cannot keep upgraded with all the reserch stuff that flows on Usenet. On the other side, many academic places are interested in Minix, and at least in Italy, a number of them have problems with usenet. So the Minix Center is a good source of information. By the way, USENET is not for free: to stay connected costs a lot of money - modem, phone bills, systems managers, etc. So actually in Italy the Minix Center is the cheapest way of stay in touch with Minix people. Paolo Ciancarini Visiting Scholar Yale University
eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael) (08/02/90)
In article <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk>, tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > > This is part of an ad that appears in Program Now, a UK based > programming magazine: > > MINIX > > Run a Unix Type System > For only $87.75 > > A unix type multi-tasking, multi-user system that will run on IBM clones > or Atari ST. > > Including printouts and patches from USENET. > > > The Minix Centre > Forncett-End Nr Norwich Norfolk. > > > Several things disturb me about this. Firstly does this company > have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing? > Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The > trouble is I don't see any way to stop them. > Tony Firstly, yes, Prentice Hall does know and is quite happy with the arrangement. Secondly, let's consider quite carefully what is actually happening here. I won't repeat my earlier posting about The MINIX Centre, but I must point out that it is not the intention to make money out of other people's efforts, and never has been. The MINIX Centre's intention is to assist the MINIX community by supplying patches and updates to people who would not receive them otherwise. They are not in business to make a fat profit out of it (look at the prices charged !) It has been The MINIX Centre's policy from the start to never distribute any article or posting containing a request from its author that it not be used for commercial purposes. That is why for example neither clam nor cc68 are available from The MINIX Centre. The MINIX Centre does charge for its support service, whose staff spend a large amount of time on the phone answering questions and sending disks out the door. Those people registered with the support service receive copies of Usenet articles in a quarterly newsletter as part of the support service. The Usenet articles are not sold on their own, but are distributed in this way so that those who might otherwise never see them get a chance to do so. There is always the thorny question of commercialism in any such venture. Neither the people answering the telephones or the machines that use come free. The MINIX Centre charges because it has to do so to survive. In fact The MINIX Centre just about broke even this year, so don't get the idea that some nasty organisation is getting holidays in barbados out of your efforts, because it isn't. The MINIX Centre was created by MINIX enthusiasts who didn't like the support it got from Prentice Hall (who of course take the real profit from the Usenet fixes in each new release of MINIX). If the feeling of the net is that The MINIX Centre desist from distributing Usenet postings and articles then it will do so. It just seems a pity that such a thing should have to happen because of a misunderstanding about the commercial necessities of keeping The MINIX Centre in operation. Comments please ??? Andy Michael -- Andy Michael (eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk) " Software cannot be written to 85 Hawthorne Crescent be completely free of errors." West Drayton Middlesex - Acorn Computers Ltd. UB7 9PA
ath@prosys.se (Anders Thulin) (08/02/90)
In article <26233@nigel.udel.EDU> HBO043%DJUKFA11.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Christoph van Wuellen) writes: >well, about the Copyright: > >unlike in USA, you don't have a copyright if you dont explicitly add a >copyright notice. This is true in many other countries. In almost all European nations, copyright is automatic - there is no need to write a formal notice. In the US, it used to be necessary to add a copyrightnotice. I believe this changed early this year, when the US govt. sign the Berne convention (or whatever it's called nowadays), which explicitly states that no such formality (of copyright notices) is required. But I may have got things wrong ... -- Anders Thulin ath@prosys.se {uunet,mcsun}!sunic!prosys!ath Telesoft Europe AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
mitchell (Bill Mitchell) (08/02/90)
In article <1749@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael) writes: > > .... info about MINIX Centre ..... > >If the feeling of the net is that The MINIX Centre desist from distributing >Usenet postings and articles then it will do so. It just seems a pity that >such a thing should have to happen because of a misunderstanding about the >commercial necessities of keeping The MINIX Centre in operation. > >Comments please ??? > >From what I've read here and in other recent net postings on this matter, it sounds as if the MINIX Centre is providing a useful and valuable service at a bargain price. I would vote that they continue to provide this service. I, for one, would be grateful for a similar service here in the USofA. I do a bad job of keeping track of all the good stuff which is posted here. I'd happily pay a reasonable fee to support the efforts of someone else who would do a better job, and make the results of their efforts available to me. I'd be in hog heaven if I could order a distribution kit of uucp, [swu]mail, cc68, etc, etc. thru the mail for a few dollars per disk and receive a well-organized and up-to-date kit in returm.
drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) (08/03/90)
In <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> tjc@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: >This is part of an ad that appears in Program Now, a UK based >programming magazine: >MINIX >Run a Unix Type System >For only $87.75 ... >Including printouts and patches from USENET. >The Minix Centre >Forncett-End Nr Norwich Norfolk. > Several things disturb me about this. Firstly does this company >have permission from Prentice Hall for what they are doing? >Secondly they are selling the contents of this newsgroup for profit. The >trouble is I don't see any way to stop them. > Tony Depending on what, if any, they pay Prentice-Hall, they surely aren't making much profit. And, if some novice collects the Minix patches via telecommunication, someone surely profits on that. David Dick Software Innovations, Inc. [the Software Moving Company(tm)]
eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael) (08/03/90)
In article <26248@nigel.udel.EDU>, eo@ansa.co.uk (Ed Oskiewicz) writes: > Dear *, > > I suppose we ought to figure out how much these guys are charging > and what for before getting too hot under the collar - presumably > they subscribe to the list so maybe they could tell us. After all a > (modest) media only charge for making upgrades and useful goodies > available to those who don't have the benefit of net access or > employers or colleges paying their communications bills is > reasonable (and a useful service). > (Stuff deleted) > > Ed Oskiewicz (eo@ansa.co.uk) Certainly. All you have to do is ask. Before we go any further could I just clear up one major misconception which seems to have crept in. The originator of the posting which started this discussion did himself and everyone a great disservice by quoting part of the advertisement out of context. This has led to the belief that The MINIX Centre is selling a Usenet derived MINIX for 80-odd pounds without anyone's permission. So --- 1. The price quoted in the advertisement for MINIX is for a genuine P-H copy bought from P-H and sold on in exactly the same way that a bookshop does. The only difference is that this particular "bookshop" knows the difference between a device driver and a sausage. 2. The MINIX Centre has express written permission from P-H to supply bug-fixes and improvements to their customers. This permission was only granted after a long hard fight. The MINIX Centre is the ONLY place where those without Usenet access can obtain these fixes in the UK. If you ask P-H they will immediately refer you to The MINIX Centre. 3. Usenet articles are distributed in one of two ways. Firstly as part of the annual support service to which customers can subscribe. This currently costs 35 pounds a year. Those who joined the service last year have so far received unlimited telephone support and the best part of 1500 sides of A4 paper in the form of a quarterly magazine which also contains Usenet listings. The Usenet listings are selected for their content (nobody really wants to read pages of uuencoded listings !) and are printed complete. No attempt is made to disguise the name of the author or to claim that The MINIX Centre has written them itself. 4. The second way in which articles are distributed is if someone rings up and requests a copy of a particular article. The MINIX Centre has most of the comp.os.minix postings archived. For this service the customer is charged a fee of 5 pounds per disk, regardless of the number of files on the disk. 5. The MINIX Centre has also recently put together a copy of 1.5.10 for both the PC and the ST. The distribution for the PC consists of 13 disks of source code assmebled from all the 1.5.x postings. This currently costs 35 pounds, purely because it takes half a morning to copy 13 disks. I hope that this answers a few questions and puts some minds at rest. I (in my totally biased opinion) think that The MINIX Centre offers a pretty good deal to its customers. In fact it is such a good deal that prices will almost certainly have to increase by 20 percent for next year. Bear in mind that the UK rate of inflation is now 10 percent, so only half of this increase is due (we admit it) to getting our sums wrong. I said previously that The MINIX Centre just about broke even last year. In fact if you take into account some of the hidden costs supported by its parent company it didn't even do that. The increase is to rectify that balance. In addition, if The MINIX Centre is to support its customers properly it needs to buy a 386, an Atari TT and an Amiga in the near future. I think that we can safely ignore the Mac in the UK - or at least I hope so. Finally just remember that The MINIX Centre believes in MINIX. We wouldn't have gone through the long slog that we have had so far if we didn't. The last thing we want to do is to be seen as a parasite on the MINIX community. Mainly because it isn't true. Andy Michael -- Andy Michael (eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk) " Software cannot be written to 85 Hawthorne Crescent be completely free of errors." West Drayton Middlesex - Acorn Computers Ltd. UB7 9PA
harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (08/04/90)
In article <26259@usc.edu>, kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J. Hendrickson) writes: > I don't mind if anybody uses my postings for personal use, and I also > don't mind if they use them in some business, as long as they are not > directly profiting from my work. (That is - if they just use the Minix > operating system to do other work, this is just fine.) I am really > upset that somebody would have the gall to re-sell my postings and > profit from them. Don't forget that you are a very fortunate individual for having net access. I went years between hearing about the net and having access, and I would have been very grateful if someone would have offered to package the usenet material in a format I could have accessed on my PC. To sum up: Don't be the dog in the manger. Don't forget Marie Antoinette. -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...
inst182@tuvie (Inst.f.Techn.Informatik) (08/06/90)
In article <1751@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> eesrajm@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Andrew J Michael) writes: >5. The MINIX Centre has also recently put together a copy of 1.5.10 for both >the PC and the ST. The distribution for the PC consists of 13 disks of >source code assmebled from all the 1.5.x postings. This currently costs 35 >pounds, purely because it takes half a morning to copy 13 disks. Does that mean that those of us who can't ftp :-( and missed the first patches need not wait for PH to start selling 1.5 ? (By the way, when will that be? It was announced for "somtime in summer", which lasts from June 21st to September 22nd. Half of that period is over now. Does anybody know a specific date ?) Can I just order those diskettes or do I have to prove I purchased 1.3? Regards, Peter -- | _ | Peter J. Holzer | Think of it | | |_|_) | Technische Universitaet Wien | as evolution | | | | | hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at | in action! | | __/ | ...!uunet!mcsun!tuvie!vmars!hp | Tony Rand |
hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at (Peter Holzer) (08/07/90)
inst182@tuvie (me) writes: >Does that mean that those of us who can't ftp :-( and missed the first >patches need not wait for PH to start selling 1.5 ? Thanks to all those people who pointed me to mail servers, BITFTP, TRICKLE, ... I was aware of these possibilities, but they are too expensive: 13 disk @ 360k = 4680k. Mail costs about $0.50/k here, so all the patches would be $2340! I would not have to pay this myself, but the university doesn't like to spend that much money on the hobby of a student. Regards, Peter -- | _ | Peter J. Holzer | Think of it | | |_|_) | Technische Universitaet Wien | as evolution | | | | | hp@vmars.tuwien.ac.at | in action! | | __/ | ...!uunet!mcsun!tuvie!vmars!hp | Tony Rand |
ken@minster.york.ac.uk (08/09/90)
In article <26198@nigel.udel.EDU> andrew@eleceng.bradford.ac.uk (Andrew G. Minter) writes: >> >> Well, we can (and should) let Prentice Hall know about this. Second, I >> will start to put a notice on my postings that they cannot be sold or >> re-sold by any party, any time, or any place. > >This sounds like a good idea and I agree with you. However, all sites here >have to pay to receive USENET news, so where exactly do you draw the line. >I think I can see where it is, but I don't know how you would tie it up in >legal terms. > >> If this company continues, then I suppose that we could restrict >> distribution of our articles, so that they only go to North America, >> South America, Asia, Africa, and the continent. Perhaps this would piss >> off the Brits enough that they would take legal action against this >> company in Great Britain. > >Please, please don't do this: > >1. I'm not at all convinced that these people are doing anything strictly > illegal (although I'm disturbed at the prices they seem to be charging > for "free" software, especially GNU stuff). PD libraries are allowed to make a "reasonable charge" for conveying software, such as cost of postage, disk, cost of running the company, etc. If they are charging more than this then they are breaking the law. I don't know whether this is criminal law (the police get involved) or civil law. Judging by most other PD libraries, the cost of the disks should be no more than about \(ps 5 / $10 (although it might justifiably be more if the customer base is much smaller). I'd rather have this service around than not - there are a lot of minix users without access to USENET, and who need the information (I used to be without USENET access, and it really _hurt_ - one of the factors in my job change!). Ken -- Ken Tindell UUCP: ..!mcsun!ukc!minster!ken Computer Science Dept. Internet: ken%minster.york.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk York University, Tel.: +44-904-433244 YO1 5DD UK
giguere@csg.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Giguere) (08/11/90)
In article <650145312.12585@minster.york.ac.uk> ken@SoftEng.UUCP (ken) writes: >PD libraries are allowed to make a "reasonable charge" for conveying >software, such as cost of postage, disk, cost of running the company, etc. >If they are charging more than this then they are breaking the law. I don't >know whether this is criminal law (the police get involved) or civil law. >Judging by most other PD libraries, the cost of the disks should be no more >than about \(ps 5 / $10 (although it might justifiably be more if the >customer base is much smaller). There seems to be general confusion in parts of the net as to what Public Domain status really implies. A piece of software is in the public domain if the authors have publicly renounced all rights (including copyright) to their work. "In the public domain" is not a concept limited to software. Most (unclassified) government documents are PD. Printed material whose copyright has expired is PD. So what does this mean? If a program is truly PD, then I can do what I want with it. I can sell it to anyone I want. I can make modifications and copyright those changes. I can include pieces of PD software in any software I write. It doesn't matter if I got it off the net for free. The only thing I can't do is try to copyright it again. Once a work passes into the public domain it is there forever. You just have to find it. (Note, however, that copyright law allows for independent, original creation.) Important note: I'm talking about legalities, not ethics. "But I want to keep the copyright on my program," you say. Well fine. No problem there. Just don't say "Copyright 1990 by Joe Programmer. All rights reserved." and "Released in the public domain." in the same file! The two phrases together are non-sensical. Your program CANNOT be copyrighted and in the public domain at the same time -- the two are mutually exclusive. But keeping the copyright entitles you to assign rights as you see fit. So it IS sensible to include sentences like "This software can be freely copied for non-commercial purposes." if that's what you want to do. In this case you're talking about "freeware" (if the author requests a payment then it's usually called "shareware"). If you don't want your software distributed for anything more than "reasonable" copying costs then you can say so. (But as always, enforcing such restrictions is another matter altogether.) Anyone who writes software should really pick up a book on copyrights just to get an overview of the issues involved. And when in doubt, consult a lawyer. That's what they're there for. -- Eric Giguere giguere@csg.UWaterloo.CA
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (08/12/90)
>In article <26198@nigel.udel.EDU> andrew@eleceng.bradford.ac.uk (Andrew G. Minter) writes: >PD libraries are allowed to make a "reasonable charge" for conveying >software, such as cost of postage, disk, cost of running the company, etc. >If they are charging more than this then they are breaking the law. Nope. When a work is in the public domain, anyone can do anything he wants with it, including modifying it, selling it for an abitrary price, and much more. The only thing he can't do is get it out of the public domain. This discussion of the law is getting a bit weary. For people who want to discuss copyright, public domain, and related issues, I strong recommend the following book (written by 3 ACLU lawyers): Title: The Rights of Authors and Artists Authors:K.P. Norwick, J.S. Chasen with H.R. Kaufman Publ: Bantam Books, 666 Fifth Ave, New York, N.Y. 10103 ISBN: 0-553-23654-7 Price: $3.95 It is only 200 pages and written for nonlawyers, but it explains everyone you every wanted to know about copyright law, libel, and fun things like that. A lot of what is said in this and other groups about the law just ain't so. The book tends to examine things from a civil liberties point of view (like the question of whether the statement: "All Lithuanians are child molesters" in a book would be libel under the law), but it also discusses the copyright law in considerable detail. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)