Joshua.R.Poulson@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU (08/23/90)
Hello everyone, I just recently joined this list and it appears that everyone is talking about the big crackdown (Operation Sun-Devil and related stuff?) and the Orwellian taste it has. Perhaps I should strengthen the opposing viewpoint some more since it seems to be losing. Our computer here at Widener University is owned by the University. The University hires me to maintain the operation of that computer. The computer's function is to provide a service to specific group of people: our user base. Now, our user base consists of students, staff, faculty, and administrative personnel here. Since the use of a computer is a service that is provided to the users, when someone extracts usage that he or she is not supposed to extract, we consider that THEFT of that service. This is similar to the people that mess with cable TV lines to get pay services. Theft of service is a legal and I suppose well-defined area. When someone calls our modems just to play cracking games with our system and denies the use of that modem to someone with a legitimate purpose we take that fairly seriously. I suppose that the people who are "exploring" the network and "experimenting" with the equipment I'm responsible for don't see it that way. I see it as people who are exploiting the connectivity that I've fought to provide for legitimate users. It hurts that someone takes advantage of the utility the system should have. No one likes entering passwords in order to employ useful programs. Now there are problems I have with some of the actions I've heard described about Operation Sun-Devil. Those doubts are based upon the CONSTITUTIONALITY of certain things. However, I support the idea that a harder stance has be taken again people who misuse or abuse the equipment they're provided. The software issue, I feel, is the same way. Software is licensed to users for their personal use. Users purchase the SERVICE of the software, just like users paying tuition are getting the SERVICE of our computer. I think that software developers are allowed to receive recompense for their work. Now I do admit that it seems that competition in the market is on a downslide and that certain things are getting expensive. It used to be cheap to develop DOS programs. Now if you want to write code for Windows and OS/2 (PM or not) it'll cost you in time (it's more complicated), money (those development kits are not cheap... and neither is a reasonable compiler), and resources (it's hard to believe the kind of machine needed to do serious development work!). I think that's unreasonable. I like machines better that include all that fancy software very cheaply. Unix boxes with X Windows are CHEAP, compared to the DOS/Windows/OS-2 nightmare. Now, as I get off of my soapbox and paint a bullseye on my chest, I would like to offer myself as an advocate on the opposite side of any issue. I feel that a certain amount of research is required to produce better workers for the future. And, it's nice to play with a game before buying it. And, it costs a lot to develop newer operating systems so how do you make up the costs. (See, ain't I lots of fun?) I'll see everybody later, happy posting. --JRP [Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.widener.EDU] Please don't send mail straight to me. If it's pertinent, post it. If it's a flame, trash it. If it's a love note, forward it to my girlfriend.
Joshua.R.Poulson@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU (08/23/90)
(Despite my warning at the bottom of my message, I have received private mail concerning my previous message... tsk tsk) However, I will respond to the message on the list: harkcom@pa.yokogawa.co.jp writes: > But the problem is that it will become a product because the companies > won't need to service it. You'll get bad quality software at expensive > prices, leading some foreign nation to move in and take over the market. > That is what legislation and all this look and feel bull**** are going to > give the US... Sure. The software developers definitely need to get their act together. Right now the hot item for all the companies to do is advertise about their software support hotlines and other goodies. That's real American marketing at work as always (it's the only thing we do really well anymore, isn't it?) and the consumer is getting screwed as a result. What I would like to see is legislation requiring a BASIC amount of service for shrink-wrapped software. Except, of course, I hate legislation. I am one who subscribes to the "govern least to govern best" ideal (which is nice but it doesn't work). Consumers still vote with their money. When shareware comes out that's better than what's on the market all those developers are going to need to scramble. Look at what ProComm did to the communications program market (which was going to the dogs, IMHO). Of course, now that market is getting stagnant again... but it'll clear up. I complained at great length that people have to pay much more to develop software now, compared to what they used to. Do you think I want to pay $500 for a software development kit and another $2000 for seminars and then $100 for some great books that should have come with the SDK to begin with? Well, I am paying for it and that's a shame. I would rather not. I feel sorry for the little developer that doesn't have a Univerisity footing his bills. (I pay for it too... I don't get the big salaries of the big companies, AND I don't get to do interesting BIG projects. Everything in school is so small-scale.) > I thought most of research was done in universities anyway. Or > from the comments previous to this, the real research is being done at > universities. The development costs of most software companies are very > small. Most businesses find someone who has done something good on their own > and crank it into shape then slap a humongous price tag on it because of > all the work (ads, martinis, getting people laid, etc) that went into it. Some of that work gets done in universities too ;-). A lot of theory gets developed in Universities. A lot of practice gets done in the field. The people who actually use theories to make superior software deserve to charge a little for it. It costs money to get a Doctorate in Computer Science. It costs money to get a nice enough machine to develop real software. It costs money to find out about all this little specifications out there (VCPI, GUI, API, the I-suffixed acronyms are coming...). It costs money to figure out if you are violating legal things. It costs money to get and enforce your own copyright. It costs money to get your message to your target market. I think it costs less money to seduce a little company and sell its product. There are still lots of big costs involved. It cost 10 million dollars to market Microsoft Windows 3.0. They're bringing it a lot more than that back (especially in complementary products like Excel and Word and Project and Powerpoint and... well you get the idea). I think that Microsoft handled this one well. There are glitches in Windows but they will be fixed. Microsoft handled this upgrade VERY well. It's cheap. It's easy. It's well supported on the phone. What more do you want? It's the way Windows should have been in the first place. Now if you could only write programs for it as cheaply... Enough rambling from me... --JRP [Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.widener.EDU]
harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) (08/24/90)
In article <5A08161122060136-MTABWIDENER*Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.widener.edu> Joshua.R.Poulson@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU writes: =}The software issue, I feel, is the same way. Software is licensed to users =}for their personal use. Users purchase the SERVICE of the software, just =}like users paying tuition are getting the SERVICE of our computer. I think =}that software developers are allowed to receive recompense for their work. But the problem is that it will become a product because the companies won't need to service it. You'll get bad quality software at expensive prices, leading some foreign nation to move in and take over the market. That is what legislation and all this look and feel bull**** are going to give the US... =} I =}feel that a certain amount of research is required to produce better =}workers for the future. And, it's nice to play with a game before buying =}it. And, it costs a lot to develop newer operating systems so how do you =}make up the costs. (See, ain't I lots of fun?) I thought most of the research was done in universities anyway. Or from the comments previous to this, the real research is being done at universities. The development costs of most software companies are very small. Most businesses find someone who has done something good on their own and crank it into shape then slap a humongous price tag on it because of all the work (ads, martinis, getting people laid, etc) that went into it. -- -- $@2#2OEE5!3t<02q<R(J PA$@#15;#22](J TEL 0422-52-5748 FAX 0422-55-1728 E-mail harkcom@pa.yokogawa.co.jp
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/24/90)
A dark prediction...
Within the next two years (whatever, soon) an individual will be sued
and personally financially destroyed over a major freeware package.
Although the plaintiff will be an otherwise neutral harmed party
rumors will circulate that the legal muscle used to pursue the suit
came from a major software house with an interest (although nothing
will be proven as it will be nicely weasled, the money washed thru the
law firm, for example, coincidentally they both use the same law
firm.)
The court will hold that individuals representing freeware can be held
normally liable, regardless of various disclaimers written into the
package. The "fame and adulation" will be considered equivalent
tangible value to having received payment for the work. Freeware, as a
legal concept, will cease to exist. Warranties of Merchantability etc
will be applicable to freeware.
As I said, a dark prediction.
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDreg@lti2.UUCP (Rick Genter x18) (08/24/90)
Barry writes: > A dark prediction... > [ said dark predicition deleted ] > -Barry Shein I disagree. It's not possible for a lawsuit to reach resolution in two years in this country [1/2 :-(]. - reg -- Rick Genter reg%lti.uucp@bu.edu Language Technology, Inc.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/24/90)
In article <5A08161122060136-MTABWIDENER*Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.widener.edu> Joshua.R.Poulson@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU writes: > Since the use of a computer is a service that is provided to the users, > when someone extracts usage that he or she is not supposed to extract, we > consider that THEFT of that service. This is similar to the people that > mess with cable TV lines to get pay services. Fair enough. Now what would you think if the government "cracked down" on a bunch of guys who were messing with cable-TV lines, and: (a) Charged them with the entire cost of producing "Back to the Future II" because they viewed it on the stolen cable. (b) Confiscated the property of one of their employer's (say, a bunch of VCRs and tapes at a video store) because they were associated with cable-TV piracy. (c) Shut down and confiscated the printing equipment of a company that printed cable program guides because they ran a story on them. The question isn't whether anyone did anything illegal (it's my opinion that many people performed actions that are definitely illegal), but whether the response was (a) appropriate, (b) measured, and (c) directed against the guilty parties. It is my opinion that it wasn't. > However, I support the idea that a > harder stance has be taken again people who misuse or abuse the equipment > they're provided. A *harder* stance? Maybe. But a sudden change from looking the other way (read "The Cuckoo's Egg" for details) to massive overkill is a bit beyond the pale. > fancy software very cheaply. Unix boxes with X Windows are CHEAP, compared > to the DOS/Windows/OS-2 nightmare. I don't know about that. X is pretty much a nightmare, too. UNIX is great, but X is a step backwards to the monitor/ROM library approach to O/S design. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/24/90)
This is geting a bit off the mark... In article <HARKCOM.90Aug23123023@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP> harkcom@potato.pa.Yokogawa.CO.JP (Alton Harkcom) writes: > Most businesses find someone who has done something good on their own > and crank it into shape Have you ever "cranked a product into shape"? Try it before you belittle it. > then slap a humongous price tag on it because of > all the work (ads, martinis, getting people laid, ...cocaine... > etc) that went into it. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/24/90)
In article <9008231949.AA04526@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > Within the next two years (whatever, soon) an individual will be sued > and personally financially destroyed over a major freeware package. What sort of freeware? I can see that with shareware or GNUware or other ware where the author claims to retain some control over the product. But what about PD software? -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/27/90)
I wrote, and Peter da Silva replies... >> Within the next two years (whatever, soon) an individual will be sued >> and personally financially destroyed over a major freeware package. > >What sort of freeware? I can see that with shareware or GNUware or other >ware where the author claims to retain some control over the product. But >what about PD software? Well, the crystal ball is fuzzy on specifics... Although a lawyer should be consulted I'm not convinced that merely putting something in the public domain frees one of all responsibilities (for example, if I published something libelous, but marked it in the public domain, would that absolve me a priori? I think the two acts are quite independent.) The path of least resistance would probably be where the author retained significant rights to the software, which is what I think you're getting at. But the strongest strategic point would be made by harrassing someone who was not easy to write off as "oh, that's just such and such, s/he probably has lots of enemies", it would be most vicious if it was some poor, innocent random joe (or jane), not a firebrand. Remember, I was talking about evility, not justice. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Joshua.R.Poulson@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU (08/28/90)
I said: > Since the use of a computer is a service that is not provided to the users, > when someone extracts usage that he or she is not supposed to extract, we > consider that THEFT of that service. This is similar to the people that > mess with cable TV lines to get pay services. peter@ferranti.com said: > Fair enough. Now what would you think if the government "cracked down" on > a bunch of guys who were messing with cable-TV lines, and: > [a pile of nasty stuff deleted] I have to agree with the Constitution on this one. What I've heard about this sort of thing makes me think a jury would throw these actions out. We have a Bill of Rights that protects us from cruel and unusual punishment as well as illegal search and seisure. However, there is no precedent and the executive branch, in a savvy effort, is going as far as it can so that the things they ARE allowed to do (which they wanted in the first place) will seem fair and reasonable after these cases are ruled upon. Lots of people do things by going to far and then conceding to a nicer place. The barter system gives us lots of examples. What's going to come out of all of this is that the first people will escape from the police getting carried away (admittedly they'll be pretty scared), and a precedent will be set for all the other cases that will be coming up soon. I said: > However, I support the idea that a > harder stance has to be taken against people who misuse or abuse the equipment > they're provided. Peter said: > A *harder* stance? Maybe. But a sudden change from looking the other way > (read "The Cuckoo's Egg" for details) to massive overkill is a bit beyond > the pale. I think that by being tough on these Frontier outlaws we can increase awareness and scare the bad guys. I also support the Electronic Frontier Foundation's efforts to organize the legal effort. Only by carefully building a legal foundation can a lot of suffering be avoided. The current stance on hackers is "they're cute and harmless." I personally think that many can be dangerous and damaging. The people writing viruses, worms, trojans, or other clearly damaging programs, are not getting praise from me, no matter how nice their code is. It's just as interesting, to me, to write useful code that does something for society. I said: > Unix boxes with X Windows are CHEAP, compared > to the DOS/Windows/OS-2 nightmare. Peter said: > I don't know about that. X is pretty much a nightmare, too. UNIX is great, > but X is a step backwards to the monitor/ROM library approach to O/S design. I've coded for many different types of windowing systems. I've also seen what products are out there. Would somebody pay $500 to get an X-Windows toolkit? Some would, I guess. How about $3000? I like the modern GUI's. I just wish someone would make a simple language for them (ALL platforms!) like C was to programming a while ago... I guess the futures list is a great place for a dream like that... > -- > Peter da Silva. `-_-' > +1 713 274 5180. > peter@ferranti.com Thanks for the comments. --JRP [.signature withheld for taxes]
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/29/90)
You say a dark prediciton, Barry, but weren't you recently arguing that it was about time that the standards of warranty and liability from other industries started showing up in software? That fame and adulation are the compensation for freeware, and that they substitute for the cash is no idle comment. It's true, and it's nothing new to software. People have done things for free all the time, and often done well. Consultants and gurus love to give free advice to the press for the fame it brings them, for that fame means clients down the road. In Richard Stallman's world of no intellectual property, where programmers are paid only for custom work, I would guess that much of the free software generated would be generated to drum up such work. If a doctor performs an operation as a charity case, they can still get sued for malpractice, I think. This is nothing new. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/30/90)
>You say a dark prediciton, Barry, but weren't you recently arguing that it >was about time that the standards of warranty and liability from other >industries started showing up in software? Well, my talk on this group tends to be more speculative than that. What I did say was *IF* the software vendors want all rights and privileges extended to other products (e.g. copyrights, patents, etc) *THEN* they surely should be held to the same standards of warranty and liability of other products. My actual suspicion is that some compromise is in order and we need to recognize the "frontier" quality and inherent differences of software and other more tangible products. >In Richard Stallman's world of no intellectual property, where >programmers are paid only for custom work, I would guess that much of the >free software generated would be generated to drum up such work. I don't think Richard's position is "no intellectual property", I think that's an extreme interpretation of what I'll admit is a somewhat confusing position. FSF certainly uses the copyright laws to assert ownership of their software, for example. Their claims may be a bit non-standard, but they certainly believe the copyright laws give validity to those claims, GNU software is *their* intellectual property, even if they choose to give that property away. As an analogy, a book I write is my intellectual property, even if I publish it. I can choose to let you copy it, that's very common in the paper publishing business (I think all ACM SIG journals basically say "you can copy this all you want, just give us credit", check me on that I may be confusing another org's pubs.) A problem arises when someone copyrights something they have no intention of publishing, but wants the copyright laws to protect them. That, some would claim, is a very strange use or abuse of copyright laws. It might be normal behavior under trade secret laws, *BUT* trade secret laws do not provide them with the type of protection they seek, which is why the software vendors don't use them! For starters, trade secret laws demand vigorous attempts to maintain the property in question as a secret, the coca-cola formula is the classic [ahem] example. In fact, there isn't a lot to trade secret laws because of its strict requirements. Suits are generally limited to former employees with bona fide access to the "secret", or a real thief (someone breaks into your safe and steals the secret.) Any other access is generally construed as prima facie evidence of carelessness on your part, and the burden switches heavily to the damaged party. Patents are an entirely different dimension since the patent office of course demands a public filing of all claims and a description of the technology sufficient for someone "skilled in the art" to fully understand those claims. E.g., I should be able to re-implement LZW from their public patent claim. Now it gets interesting.... In order to file a proper U.S. copyright one has to submit two copies of the material being copyrighted to the U.S. Copyright Office. Those copies are entered into the Library of Congress. A question: Can I go to the Library of Congress and find full source code listings of every program which claims a proper copyright? I don't think so, something is amiss. CLARIFICATION: By a "proper" copyright I mean one filed with the U.S. Copyright Office (again, using the U.S. as an example, please no flames about how there are other countries also!) One can have a somewhat limited copyright by, well, by not doing anything. Under the Berne Conventions one doesn't even have to write their copyright notice on the material, although it's strongly advised to avoid "ignorance of the fact" defenses which are quite legal in this country. But if you copyright like that, without formal filing, you are limited legally to *only* cease and desist suits. NO MONETARY DAMAGES CAN BE COLLECTED IF THE COPYRIGHT WAS NEVER FILED PROPERLY. I can provide references on that if anyone doubts it. Back to the issue at hand... >If a doctor performs an operation as a charity case, they can still get >sued for malpractice, I think. This is nothing new. Agreed, although now we immediately sink into the whole "Good Samaritan" issues which affords doctors in such cases quite a bit of protection although it's been weakened lately (quite unfortunately.) Meaning, it's not simple, there's lots of if's, and's and but's. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
mwm@DECWRL.DEC.COM (Mike Meyer, Real Amigas have keyboard garages) (08/30/90)
>> A question: Can I go to the Library of Congress and find full source >> code listings of every program which claims a proper copyright? >> >> I don't think so, something is amiss. Interesting question. I called the Library of Congress and asked. If they consider the reason or rationale for your looking at the filed sources reasonable, they will let you review it at the library. You may not copy it or take it off the premises. There's a $10 fee for doing this, and it takes them weeks to pull the document after you've made the request. The next obvious thing to do is ask them to pull the document for whatever copyright of Lotus's was being violated by Paperback Softwaare. But you have to be able to get to Washington DC to take advantage of this. A $10 processing fee isn't to bad, but roundtrip air tickets to the other coast are a bit much just to satisfy my curiosity. <mike
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/31/90)
In article <5A081B0E041502F3-MTABWIDENER*Joshua.R.Poulson@cyber.widener.edu> Joshua.R.Poulson@CYBER.WIDENER.EDU writes: > However, there is no precedent and the > executive branch, in a savvy effort, is going as far as it can so that the > things they ARE allowed to do (which they wanted in the first place) will > seem fair and reasonable after these cases are ruled upon. That doesn't mean that the position they're bargaining to is going to be a fair and reasonable one. It'll just *seem* that way by comparison. And I'm not sure they're really working on this premise. Their track record in other areas (eg, the war on drugs) is hardly comforting. > What's going to come out of all of this is that the first people will > escape from the police getting carried away (admittedly they'll be pretty > scared), Escape after losing their job, their business, and their freedom. And just because the laws change doesn't help the folks who got put away before that. Whatever happened to the guy who was bashing on the Berlin Wall every year until he fell down on the other side? > I think that by being tough on these Frontier outlaws we can increase > awareness and scare the bad guys. I don't think so. There's already pretty much awareness, in fact the size and power of the black hats is way overstated. And they've sure scared some of the good guys. > The current stance on hackers is "they're cute and harmless." I personally > think that many can be dangerous and damaging. And many aren't. The problem is that the *basis* for the current law is wrong. If you move backwards from a foray you made in the wrong direction you're still not going the right way. But more to the point, the current stance on hackers in the real world is that they're this all-powerful cabal that must be destroyed at all costs. > The people writing viruses, > worms, trojans, or other clearly damaging programs, are not getting praise > from me, no matter how nice their code is. Hey, where do we make the jump from phrackers to virus writers? (The X versus whatever discussion is interesting, but not appropriate for an extended exchange) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com