Alan_J_Roberts@Sun.COM (09/20/89)
John McAfee posted this message on HomeBase and asked that it be sent
to VIRUS-L and other lists:
A number of press releases issued by Centel Corp. of McLean VA
have implied or directly stated that they were "selling" a diskette
containing the VIRUSCAN program to combat the alleged DataCrime
threat. In response I would like to state that there has been no
agreement between Centel and myself to allow such distribution, nor
have I at any time indicated to Centel that I was interested in such
an arrangement. Any such distribution is taking place without my
consent and authorization, and I am strongly opposed to having
VIRUSCAN promoted in the fashion being conducted by Centel. I have no
financial link to Centel and receive no part of of any incomes sent to
Centel to "purchase" the software. Nuff said.
John McAfeedmg@lid.mitre.org (David Gursky) (09/20/89)
Why does McAfee's note about Centel and Viruscan bug me? Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not Viruscan shareware? I certainly understand John's concern about the possible loss of revenue because people mistakenly believe they have "purchased" Viruscan, rather than paid Centel for the distribution cost (as an aside, I somehow find $25 to be awfully high for what Centel is purporting to be doing). In any event, it strikes me that the tone of John's message is to the effect of "I want you to get your information from me and no one else". If my interpretation is indeed correct (and I apologize in advance if it is not), is this the type of attitude VIRUS-L wishes to promote? It is not in anyone's interest to restrict the flow of information on countering viruses. [Ed. VIRUS-L wishes to _facilitate_ the open discussion of virus issues and information, neither endorsing nor condemning the opinions of its contributors.] Disclaimer: Dis is soup. Dis is Art. Soup. Art. [Apologies to L. Tomlin.] David Gursky
kelly@uts.amdahl.com (Kelly Goen) (09/21/89)
Not as a flame but you have to remember that the term SHAREWARE does NOT mean Freeware or Public Domain...Centel was attempting to illegally capture shareware profits belonging legally to John Mcafee.(btw Its one thing to redistribute freely...its entirely another to charge $20.00 for the FREE distribution without permission of the author...) WE call that theft of intellectual property rights where I come from!!...While John Mcafee and CVIA wish to encourage the free flow of Antiviral information... the research, collation and codification into VIRUSCAN is a cost intensive process!! therefore John Mcafee logically should be able to determine who can redistribute his software for a FEE and Who shouldnt be able to...(for those that are interested John does have a quite attractive OEM and site licensing agreement!) Sorry to get on the soapbox but people who receive and use shareware repeatedly should be paying fees... This move would greatly improve the quality of software available from shareware authors!!!. cheers kelly p.s. flames to /dev/null
dmg@lid.mitre.org (David Gursky) (09/22/89)
In (ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.dhl.com) writes... The creator of VirusX for the Amiga certainly feels this way, [that "I want you to get your information from me and no one else"], and for a very good reason: It's the only way to make certain that the program hasn't been tampered with to make it a virus spreader instead of a stopper. It just so happens that I agree with him. What better way for some sleazo to get a virus or trojan horse spread than to make it look like it's a common, otherwise trusted, shareware virus killer program? - ----- I have no qualms with any of this per se. If the author of a package wants to limit the sources from which his or her work is available, fine! But by doing so you forfeit the right to label your work as shareware! Shareware, by definition, is software that is shared with other users for the purpose of preliminary evaluation. If the user finds the application useful, the user is honor- and legally-bound to pay the requested fee for the software. Shareware works because the distribution system is the users themselves. The author has only a minimal say in the distribution. Certainly if the author wants to more strictly limit the dissemination of his or her work, he or she is welcome to do so. The proper manner is a commercial distributor; anything that tries to mix commercial and shareware, "isn't kosher". As far as Ed's other argument goes (about using trusted shareware virus killer programs as a carrier for a virus), I can't be the only one who has failed to notice that despite that this is a common fear, it has not happened recently or often (the last case I know of was a "version" of Ross Greenberg's original FluShot, that was a Trojan Horse that destroyed FATs or some-such; even then, this wasn't a virus but a trojan). Let me take this one step further. Anti-virus applications (IMO) make a poor carrier for a virus. In order for a virus to succeed, it must go undetected. This means that prior to the activation of the virus' logic-bomb or time-bomb, it cannot interfere with the normal operation of the computer or the applications in use on the computer. To do so greatly improves the chances the virus will be discovered (to wit, the Jerusalem virus). If we work under the assumption that when a user acquires an anti-virus application, they actually use it (in fact we must work under this rule; otherwise the virus would not spread), the virus necessarily undergoes an increased chance of detection because an application is running that looks for viruses! Standard disclaimers apply. David Gursky Member of the Technical Staff, W-143 Special Projects Department The MITRE Corporation
IA96%PACE.BITNET@VMA.CC.CMU.EDU (IA96000) (09/26/89)
in a recent message to this list from david gursky, he made a statement which needs to be corrected. he made the statement "if the author of a package wants to limit the sources from which his or her work is available, fine! but by doing so you forfeit the right to label,your work as shareware!" this is not so. shareware is for the most part copyrighted and mr. mcafee's software does indeed carry a copyright! as the owner of a work which is copyrighted, j. mcafee caN CALL IT SHAREWARE OR ANY OTHER NAME HE DESIRES, EVEN FREEWARE, AND STILL MAINTAIN THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE HIS COPYRIGHTED WORK! A copyrighted work is the sole property of the holder of the copyright.like it or not, that is the law of the land. until such time a case comes to court, copyrighted shareware remains the property of the copyright holder, who may decide who has the right to distribute such work. the opinions expressed here are my own.