Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!usc!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!nagel@paris.ics.uci.edu
From: nagel@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Live News & Professional Electronic Publications in USENET Format
Message-ID: <17588@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 89 00:51:53 GMT
References: <3492@looking.on.ca> <4494@ficc.uu.net> <WISNER.89Jun11121944@anableps.berkeley.edu> <307@lawnet.LawNet.Com> <WISNER.89Jun12135437@anableps.berkeley.edu>
Sender: news@paris.ics.uci.edu
Reply-To: nagel@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel)
Organization: University of California, Irvine - Dept of ICS
Lines: 56
In-reply-to: wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner)

In article <WISNER.89Jun12135437@anableps.berkeley.edu>, wisner@mica (Bill Wisner) writes:

|ClariNet is a vehicle for the distribution of various news services. It is
|not USENET. It is not "UUCPnet". It will not be moving around mail, or
|USENET articles. It moves around news. That's all. It will use USENET software,
|and some of its customers are sure to be existing USENET sites. But it is
|seperate. Got it?

I completely agree with this and thought of the same things while
reading the referenced article, _but_ then I remembered a little
thing:

/*
 * This software is Copyright (c) 1986 by Rick Adams.
 *
 * Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
 * otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary
 * profit gained specifically from the use or reproduction or this
 * software, it is not sold, rented, traded or otherwise marketed, and
 * this copyright notice is included prominently in any copy
 * made.
 *
 * The author make no claims as to the fitness or correctness of
 * this software for any use whatsoever, and it is provided as is.
 * Any use of this software is at the user's own risk.
 *
 * inews - insert, receive, and transmit news articles.
 *
 */

I'm curious what Mr. Adams has to say about Clarinet if indeed Brad
will be using Usenet software (i.e., B News) as the logical transport
system.  Do all other news systems (e.g., C News, TMNN) have similar
constraints?

In any event, I think this is what most people have been upset with
even if they haven't quite said it.  No one is against anyone making
money (I hope).  What they are upset about is someone making money
from something that has _traditionally_ been a cooperative, shared
system.  For example, when I read that Brad will sell or license his
nifty newsreading software, the first thought I had was, "Gee, many
other people have written a lot of software for the general well-being
of the net and not asked anything for their efforts."  It isn't
_wrong_ to do so, it is just not in the so-called spirit of Usenet
(something I dare not try to define).  But the net has been built on
the generous contributions of time and effort made by hundreds of
individuals.  I believe people are a little perturbed that Brad will
be among the first to use that collective effort as a commercial
platform.  Now, if he wrote _all_ of his own software (i.e., a
complete news system functionally equivalent to the current system),
then there'd be absolutely no reason to complain.

Mark Nagel @ UC Irvine, Department of Information and Computer Science
                            +----------------------------------------+
ARPA: nagel@ics.uci.edu     | If you improve something long enough   |
UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!nagel   | eventually you will throw it away.     |