andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/22/83)
#N:uokvax:9300008:000:714 uokvax!andree Dec 20 09:50:00 1983 I would like to propose a subgroup for net.sources: net.sources.pd, or net.sources.nl. This is for those poor souls, who, like me, have zealous systems administrators who lock net.sources (to keep unlicensed eyes from viewing the sacred Unix source). I usually don't have any trouble getting the aforementioned administrator to drag what I want out of net.sources. But it puts a delay in things, and causes extra work for both of us. Thus, net.sources.nl (non-licensed) would be for posting source that DOESN'T require a Unix license. Micro-computer code (didn't somebody post modem or some such recently; or uc), applications (sc and friends), and maybe even the stray non-AT&T, non-BSD, non-DEC driver. <mike
john@genrad.UUCP (John Nelson) (01/05/84)
Ah, excuse me, but no one is SUPPOSED to post stuff to net.sources if it requires a Unix licence. Sometimes diffs are given, but if UNIX source is posted, then the poster is liable for a violation of his licence agreement. Net.sources goes to many sites which do not even run UNIX! net.sources.nl (non-licensed) is quite ridiculous. If your system administrator is locking net.sources, it is entirely unneccesary.
chuqui@cae780.UUCP (01/05/84)
Hmm... net.sources.nl? By default (and neccessity) anything that comes over
net.sources now is public domain (i.e. unlicensed). If your system
administrator is locking net.sources to keep people from getting ahold of
licensed sources, he isn't thinking straight... Either that, or you are
getting real interesting sources that I haven't seen on my side of the
net...
q
--
From the dungeons of the warlock: {amd70,qubix}!cae780!chuqui
Chuqui the Plaid *pif*
~He's not heavy, he's my brother~ (happy 1984!)ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist) (01/06/84)
Code that requires a UNIX license to read should not be posted to net.sources in the first place. I don't want to discourage stuff from being posted to net.sources, but the net is by its very nature a public forum and it is not feasable to ensure, on a netwide basis, that net.sources is only be read by people with UNIX licenses. Kenneth Almquist
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (01/06/84)
Source which requires a UNIX source license should *not* be posted to
net.sources, ever. So, Mike, your system administrators are making a
mistake if they are suppressing net.sources. Net.sources is just as
public as everything else posted to Usenet, and I would think the
responsibility not to post non-disclosure source lies on the poster.
For that matter, I cannot recall having seen anything in net.sources
over the past year and a half which was UNIX system source and should
not be disclosed to those without a source license.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!davekfk@ccieng2.UUCP (01/06/84)
---------- From genrad!john Thu Jan 5 10:43:51 1984 If your system administrator is locking net.sources, it is entirely unnecessary. ---------- Not entirely so. Net.sources is locked up around here because there are too many people with the habit of making a copy of anything that looks interesting, and then umpteen-thousand variations on a theme begin their indefinite existence on the system(s). Our sysadmin folks make a summary once a week of the stuff which has arrived, and anything madly desired by someone around here can just be installed in /usr/junk/bin. After a while, stuff in 'junk' expires unless "sponsored" by someone in the company. All of the neat-nifties which people want are available, but disc space is not wasted (not too much, anyway). It works out pretty well. Karl Kleinpaste ...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk
john@genrad.UUCP (John Nelson) (01/08/84)
I still say that locking the net.sources group is silly. I save nearly everything that comes across on net.sources on TAPE unless someone (system administrator) takes an active interest in the program. I have found some really useful stuff on tape about a year after the sources were posted.