chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) (10/31/90)
In article <9349@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jason Merrill) writes: >In article <1990Oct27.020036.24200@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >>I think that anyone who wants to use the internet and its facilities >>for commercial enterprises, and I consider the whole business of beta >>testing wincomm a commercial enterprise, should consider if what they >>are doing is legal/or within the bounds of net ethics. Note that I >>don't know if it is legal or not, I am raising this issue. > >I don't really see what the problem is. Many commercial companies have >internet nodes of their own, and distribute their own software through >them. Apple comes to mind; people can grab the System software off of their >ftp site any time. (Please, let's not start another flame war about how >Microsoft should give away DOS and OS/2...) Do you have a copy of the >NSFnet charter? Does anyone here? Does anyone know the restrictions on >usage of .edu, .com and .mil sites? The Internet is restricted to *research* purposes. Educational sites qualify, as do most commercial sites on the net, since they have large R&D departments that contribute to research. Apple giving away copies of System probably does not, but rules (at the moment) are fairly lax about that. All sites, no matter what domain they are in, are bound by their regional net policies. >>I am pretty sure >>that wincomm would not meet the criteria for distribution that >>comp.binaries.ibm.pc operates under. > >I'm not so sure about that now. Mr. Davidsen has been talking about posting >a MINIX demo, which is also commercial software... USEnet and the Internet are two separate things, other than the Internet is one of the transport mediums that Usenet uses. A lot of Usenet traffic is not allowed if you apply the Internet policies in a strict sense. What comp.binaries.ibm.pc does has little to do with what an Internet site does. >>I don't know what it costs that diffuse entity "the net" when people >>ftp back and forth, but wincomm must have used up a lot of bandwidth, >>what with (when I last counted) 5 versions, and all prospective >>users/beta testers uploading each new version. > >I may be confused on this, but I don't think that bandwidth has any "cost" >in the Internet, but that links are purchased by time. All that the use of >bandwidth does is reduce the amount of bandwidth available. And doesn't the >"blame" for most of the bandwidth go to the interested users who are >downloading it, not Synappsys' representative? Of course there's a cost associated with bandwidth. If there are 100 users FTP'ing wincomm at the same time, then my telnet session is affected. So is my FTP session to site x. There is only so much bandwidth available, how it's parceled out is how the costs are determined. The cost of the links are part of it as well. If response time becomes unacceptable because of lack of bandwidth, then new links need to be purchased. Isn't that a cost? The users didn't ask for wincomm to be made available, the reps of Synappsys (sp?) did that on their own. So in what way is the user responsible for that? >>I would guess that >>Synapps doesn't even have a connection to the internet, so they have >>been using someone else's connection. If this is true, then they are >>not physically supporting internet. > >"physically supporting internet"? People who don't really need an internet >node shouldn't be required to get one, I don't think. Laying the fiberoptic >to Synappsys HQ from some other site would be likely to cost a LOT of >money. If they want to employ Butch to post Wincomm to the net, that's fine >with me. As soon as my school gets Ethernet to the dorms, I will be able to >buy an Ethernet card and have an Internet node of my very own, but I don't >see how I will be "physically supporting internet"... But Butch is using other people's money to promote the commercial success of someone else. That's like me going through your wallet and grabbing several dollars so that I can give it to my friends. Butch doesn't *own* the Internet connection he has... he used other people's resources. Now he's allowed to *use* those resources, for purposes that have been set down by his site admins, by his regional networks, and by the Internet as a whole. I don't think that this was what they had in mind. And, when you get your ethernet card, you *won't* be supporting the Ethernet. But your tuition that you payed *will* be. As well as any other user fees that are charged at your school for computer access. Synappsys, on the other hand, has *not* supported the Internet or it's members in any way. They used it's resources for their own ends. This is akin to theft. >>All this seems to me to be in violation of the reasons that the >>internet was set up, and is therefore disturbing. I would not have >>similar concerns if this was happening on something like compuserve, >>which is a commercial enterprise. > >What are the reasons that the internet was set up? Originally, the Internet >was the Arpanet, a purely military network. Now the Arpanet (or Milnet) is >just one leg of the Internet. The other major US leg is the NSFnet. I >believe the NSFnet charter was that connections have "educational value". >That condition is being used to wipe R&X rated pictures off of FTP sites, >but as I see it it could also be used to destroy most other FTP sites. How >does getting Graphics Workshop off of cica contribute to your education? It doesn't. And the purpose for the Internet is research. As I've said, the rules are rarely enforced. Software archives are not really part of the Internet charter: they're tolerated because of the benefits they bring to the members of the Internet. Enforcement of rules is lax, in part because the bandwidth of the Internet is sufficient for the member's needs. When that bandwidth becomes scarce, then the rules will be enforced more rigorously. Wincomm will not, in any case, make that much difference. But the principle is the same. I don't know if Butch took it upon himself to put wincomm on cica, or whether Synappsys asked him to. It doesn't really matter. What does matter, is that it was directly against the policy of the Internet to do so. Commercial packages do not belong on the net, unless they are being released with no strings attached. IMHO :) Chris -- | Chris Anderson | | QMA, Inc. email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | My employer never listens to me, so why should he care what I say? |
chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) (11/01/90)
In article <9442@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jason Merrill) writes: >In article <1990Oct30.123655.15206@utgard.uucp> chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) writes: >Yes, it is. But I was referring to a specific cost, as with Usenet; calling >up UUNET costs a specific amount of money for the time you are on. There is >no such quantitative cost for Ethernet. And does anyone know whether the >major backbones of the Internet are close to a major loss of efficiency? >The local network here is, but that's largely the fault of NFS. Give me a break. What do you think the medium is? Wind? The Internet, like most wide area networks, uses data paths like T1 to operate. Do you think that these are free? A T1 line, depending on the speed, can run from $5000.00 a month to over $50,000. That's a direct cost. As is the equipment, software, management time, etc. necessary to keep it running. None of these things are cheap. Quantitative cost? Most of it is funded by gov't money. That's why universities can get onto it with no fees other than the ones mentioned above. For anybody else, the fees are considerable. So, you have two levels of costs: direct costs necessary to keep the connections running, and indirect costs via taxes. >>The users didn't ask for wincomm to be made available, the reps of >>Synappsys (sp?) did that on their own. So in what way is the user >>responsible for that? > >In that the user is downloading it. Synappsys isn't forcing anyone to look >at their product, they're just making it possible. When I buy a magazine, there are ads in it. I didn't ask for them to be there, but there they are. I'm not being forced to look at them, it's just possible. The difference is that the company *bought* the ad. Wincomm didn't. Pure and simple. >It's the distribution of information. I find software demos useful; don't >you? Also, Synappsys is asking for suggestions for future releases. They >wouldn't be able to get them nearly as quickly if they only had the input of >customers; I've never called up Microsoft to make a suggestion for the next >version of Windows. Have you? Yes I find software demos useful. So what? The Internet was not formed to distribute *any and all* information, just that which is necessary to research. Wincomm doesn't fall into that category. And the information that they gather will be used for them to make a better product, that they will then have a better chance of *selling*. Again, Syn. wins at the expense of others. >>And, when you get your ethernet card, you *won't* be supporting >>the Ethernet. But your tuition that you payed *will* be. As well >>as any other user fees that are charged at your school for computer >>access. > >They will be supporting the school's connection to the Ethernet. They won't >be supporting the Ethernet in GENERAL. The _Internet_ requires software, hardware, etc. that the school has to *buy*. And a data line capable of handling the traffic. And the computers necessary to allow students to access the network. That's what your fees (in part) are going to. That's the cost of a network connection for a school. Otherwise, yes, you are right. And this is something that isn't quite fair: schools get to use the Internet without the fees that the rest of us pay. >The only benefit a node gives to the world is the utility of the information >it distributes! This is true of my node (do you find this post useful?), >FTP sites such as cica (do you find it useful?) and anything else. The >great benefit of the Internet is the easy distribution of information. Absolutely. I agree. But that's not the *purpose* of the Internet. I, too, dream of a day when *everyone* will have a connection to a network. I hope that it will be in the same sense of fair play and responsibility that is currently enjoyed by us. I fear that it won't be. Censorship is too easy. But that's not what we're arguing about. >Certainly not everything that comes out is useful. I certainly don't have a >use for everything on Simtel20, but I consider its presence to be useful, >if nothing else than for the programs that I DO want from there. Similarly, >you may not have a use for the Wincomm demo, BUT I DO! Who are you, or >anyone else, to determine what is useful for everyone? That smacks of >censorship. True, the purpose of the Internet is research, as you say. But >how is a demo less appropriate than shareware? If we're already breaking >the rules, what criteria are left? The point I'm trying to make is that *you* *are* *not* *the* *reason* *the* *Internet* *exists*. You are enjoying a benefit, no more. At this particular point in history, these benefits are available. They may not be in the near future. In any case, these benefits are not, and should not, be available for commercial use. I don't believe that shareware is appropriate use either. But it's less blatant. Syn. is enjoying free advertising and distribution at the expense of others. *That's* blatant. >If Synappsys is using someone else's link to distribute the demo, they are >only misusing that site's resources, not anyone else's. And I don't think >it's even a waste of that site's resources. It is up to the SITE to decide >that. It's up to the site to determine what is appropriate to use it's resources for, true. But when they make something available for FTP transfer, then they have to conform to the Internet rules. That's why the X rated gifs are disappearing. Because they do not conform to the "acceptable use" policy of the Internet. Neither does wincomm. >>Synappsys, on the other hand, has *not* supported the Internet or >>it's members in any way. They used it's resources for their own >>ends. This is akin to theft. > >Aren't shareware authors doing the same thing? Perhaps shareware makes its >way onto the net via a BBS, so the author isn't posting it directly. Would >this make it more valid for Wincomm to be posted by someone who just found >it on a local BBS, rather than someone in Synappsys' employ? I don't see it >that way. Yes, they are. And no, it wouldn't make it more acceptable. I don't think shareware should be on the net. >Yes, it is the same. "Software archives are tolerated because of the >benefits they bring to the member of the Internet," and is this less true >for demos than for shareware? How do you feel about nagware? Is that less >valid? See above. Note that *free* software *does* fall under the charter of the Internet. There is a lot of wonderful software that is absolutely free. And it has it's place on the net. >But as you just said, software archives such as cica are "directly against the >policy of the Internet" too. I feel that software demos have just as much >of a place on the net as shareware, and I sincerely hope that this uproar >will not discourage other companies from distributing demos via the net. I >found the Wincomm demo useful. I also found the Pubtech software demo on >cica useful; I was able to decide from it that I wanted to buy Batchworks, >but that the other products didn't interest me. That's why companies mail demo disks, that's why they make brochures. In both of those cases they paid for the medium and transport of their product from them to you. If this practice of putting demos on the net becomes more widespread, then it will be shut down. The sad thing is that it's possible that *all* software archives may be shut down as a result. I refer you to the discussion going on in news.admin concerning the possibility of IBM "bringing Fortune 500 management to the anarchic Internet". Paraphrased, but the intent is the same. >And why did this only erupt over the Wincomm demo, and not the Pubtech? >Because Wincomm had a higher profile? Because Butch made himself available >for comments? Definitely. I recognize that Synappsys was trying to make a better product, that they fixed bugs quickly, that they were soliciting advice from their users. These are all traits to be commended. They sound like a good software company. I wish that more companies did the same. It's their methods that I'm questioning. I hope that they just weren't aware of what they were doing, and that they will desist in the future. Chris -- | Chris Anderson | | QMA, Inc. email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | My employer never listens to me, so why should he care what I say? |