) (05/02/91)
Are there any plans to port mush to Xwindows? I'm running Sun's OpenWindows now and I'd like to have my mushtool back! Please reply via email as I don't read this group very often. =Gary -- Gary Hethcoat Internal: gdh@flight Internet: ghethcoat@Eng.Sun.COM Sun Microsystems, Drivers/SBus SW UUCP: ..!sun!flight!ghethcoat "But I don't like Spam!"
jipping@cs.hope.edu (Mike Jipping) (05/06/91)
> Are there any plans to port mush to Xwindows? I'm running Sun's > OpenWindows now and I'd like to have my mushtool back! This brings up an interesting question that's been in the back of my head for a while. Maybe the MUSH gurus can clear this up for me. (NOTE: this is not a flame, and I do not mean to offend. I'm just musing about something that's been on my mind.) I understand that MUSH as gone commercial -- in the form of ZipMail from Zipcode, Inc. (or is that Zipcode Software, Inc.?)? I've also read -- in this group -- that users and/or potential porters of MUSH are expressly forbidden from producing an X version of same. I understand that ZipMail is the X version of MUSH with some pretty funky enhancements. Given that the above is correct (please right me if it is not), I have some questions: (1) Can someone -- even the authors -- retroactively place restrictions on a piece software whose source has been placed in the public domain? (2) If so, what in the MUSH copyright allowed me to compile it and/or fix bugs I found in the first place? Has that changed now that restrictions have been placed on it? (3) Now, what about this --> using recently posted software, I can generate a Sun devGuide-compatible specification of a SunView application and eventually turn it into an OpenWindows application. (devGuide is a GUI design tool). By rearranging the buttons and windows, changing the code to match OpenWIndows/X semantics, and calling this MUST (Mail User's Shell Two), have I violated the restriction above. Since I have a non-enhanced version of MUSH, am I illegally in competition with Zipcode Software? I'm just musing. As someone who has benefitted greatly from public domain contributions (I'm using GNU Emacs to contruct this message!), and one who donates once in a while, I'm curious about these issues. Thanks for a discussion, and for not ad-hominem flaming. Mike Jipping Hope College Department of Computer Science jipping@cs.hope.edu (BITNET: JIPPING@HOPE) "Koo koo ka choo" -- Simon and Garfunkel, "Mrs. Robinson"
belal@sco.COM (Bela Lubkin) (05/06/91)
> (1) Can someone -- even the authors -- retroactively place > restrictions on a piece software whose source has been placed in > the public domain? mush source code was never placed in the public domain. It was made publically available; legally this is totally different from placing it in the public domain. There are probably ways, such as the one you described, in which to violate the spirit of the mush public license without violating the letter. So? Legal restrictions and legalese are for nasty people. The rest of us need only abide by the wishes of the natural owners of the item (the mush source, in this case) without worrying about the "legal" status of those wishes. >Bela< Speaking from but not for SCO...
schaefer@ogicse.ogi.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May6.121505.11107@cs.hope.edu> jipping@cs.hope.edu writes: } } I understand that MUSH as gone commercial -- in the form of ZipMail from } Zipcode, Inc. (or is that Zipcode Software, Inc.?)? It's now called Z-Mail and the name of the company is Z-Code Software Corp. There were prior-use problems with both of the Zip names (yes, the obvious problem, in the case of the company name). } I've also read -- in } this group -- that users and/or potential porters of MUSH are expressly } forbidden from producing an X version of same. I understand that ZipMail } is the X version of MUSH with some pretty funky enhancements. This is an extremely brief overview of differences between mush and Z-Mail. General Changes: GUI (X windows) access to nearly every operation. GUI mode customizable buttons. Shell functions. Filters and a filter mode (put zmail in your .forward). Multiple simultaneous open folders. Picks across multiple folders (GUI mode only). Fullscreen (curses) mode menus and user-buttons. Attachments (aka enclosures). Suspendable compositions (~z). Use of pre-prepared message templates. References: headers added and tracked on reply. Things that are Gone: No SunWindows toolmode (sorry). No more automatic reading of /usr/lib/Mail.rc (too many conflicts, especially on SunOS where "|" has become a variable name (urk)). No source code distribution :-(. O'Reilly & Assoc. (the Nutshell folks) will be publishing a Z-Mail handbook, which will also discuss MUSH. } Given that the above is correct (please right me if it is not), I have } some questions: } } (1) Can someone -- even the authors -- retroactively place } restrictions on a piece software whose source has been placed in } the public domain? As has been pointed out in another posting, Mush has never been in the public domain. There has always been a copyright on it. However, as far as I understand it, the answer to your question is a limited "yes". The limitation is that that restrictions can't be retroactive to any copies of the work (be it software, written material, etc.) that were obtained prior to the "announcement" of the restrictions. Someone can probably correct me or expand on details; it's pretty fuzzy. But it doesn't matter in the case of Mush. } (2) If so, what in the MUSH copyright allowed me to compile it and/or } fix bugs I found in the first place? Has that changed now that } restrictions have been placed on it? Copyrights only cover what you've done to code you give to someone else. You're allowed to rip pages out of books or scribble your crib notes in the margins; you just aren't allowed make a bunch of copies and pass them out, either before or after you make those notes or rip those pages. Mush's copyright explicitly permits you to give it away as long as you don't change it first (or charge for it); it is therefore *less* restrictive than a general copyright. } (3) Now, what about this --> using recently posted software, I can } generate a Sun devGuide-compatible specification of a SunView } application and eventually turn it into an OpenWindows } application. (devGuide is a GUI design tool). By rearranging the } buttons and windows, changing the code to match OpenWIndows/X } semantics, and calling this MUST (Mail User's Shell Two), have I } violated the restriction above. Since I have a non-enhanced } version of MUSH, am I illegally in competition with Zipcode } Software? No, you are not illegally in competition with Z-Code. However, if you give away or sell the resulting program, you are in violation of Dan Heller's copyright. If you bought a VHS copy of _Star_Trek_II_, re- arranged the scenes, copied it onto Beta-format tapes with your mother's voice dubbed in over Riccardo Montalban, and started selling it as _The_Wrath_of_Mom_, you'd be in violation of Paramount's copyright. Software copyrights work essentially the same way; they're just compli- cated by ease of duplication and distribution. -- Bart Schaefer schaefer@zipcode.com Z-Code Software Corporation schaefer@cse.ogi.edu
jipping@cs.hope.edu (Mike Jipping) (05/07/91)
Thanks to all who replied. This copyright stuff is real interesting. I like Bela Lubkin's assessment: > Legal restrictions and legalese are for nasty people. The rest of us > need only abide by the wishes of the natural owners of the item (the > mush source, in this case) without worrying about the "legal" status of > those wishes. And thanks to Bart Schaefer -- but about your analogy: > If you bought a VHS copy of _Star_Trek_II_, re- > arranged the scenes, copied it onto Beta-format tapes with your mother's > voice dubbed in over Riccardo Montalban, and started selling it as > _The_Wrath_of_Mom_, you'd be in violation of Paramount's copyright. I'd venture, however, that I'd get big time laughs from Paramount and not a suit. I wonder how I can crank out a "Mom's User's Shell"... Mike Jipping Hope College Department of Computer Science jipping@cs.hope.edu (BITNET: JIPPING@HOPE) "Koo koo ka choo" -- Simon and Garfunkel, "Mrs. Robinson"
mer6g@fuggles.acc.Virginia.EDU (Marc Rouleau) (05/07/91)
schaefer@ogicse.ogi.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) writes: >Copyrights only cover what you've done to code you give to someone else. Unfortunately, with software it is often unclear what defines "someone else". If the copy that you modify belongs to your employer, what constitutes purely local use? What are the boundaries of the organization? For example, I am an employee of the Commonwealth of Virginia. I was hired by the University of Virginia, a "subsidiary" of that Commonwealth. I work for the Academic Computing Center, a department within UVa. If I modify mush on my employer's behalf (whomever that is), where might the resulting executable be used? How about the modified source code? >You're allowed to rip pages out of books or scribble your crib notes >in the margins; you just aren't allowed make a bunch of copies and pass >them out, either before or after you make those notes or rip those pages. But you *are* allowed to publish your crib notes with instructions regarding which pages to rip out and which to annotate. Likewise, I think that the distribution of input to patch(1) is not prohibited by copyright law unless the patches quote too liberally (whatever *that* means) from the copyrighted source code which is the object of the patches. -- Marc Rouleau