Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!amdahl!dwl10 From: dwl10@uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: WB 1.3.2 Keywords: legit? Message-ID: <32Qs020H53F101@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Date: 6 Sep 89 18:48:48 GMT References: <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> <7847@cbmvax.UUCP> Reply-To: dwl10@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Houston TX Lines: 59 In article <7847@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >In article dwl10@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Dave Lowrey) writes: >>In article <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: >>>In article <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> nschultz@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Ned W. Schultz) writes: >>> >>>The WB1.3.2.zoo is an official Commodore release. It is available >>>electronically through BIX, GEnie, Compuserve, and Plink. >>> >>>The reason we are limiting distribution to those national boards >>>is so >>> a) when you get something marked WB1.3.2.zoo you can be fairly >>> sure its the real thing, with no additions, or changes. >>> (like a virus, or ...) >>> b) that if you got the original, you will be able to get >>> any updates >>> c) that you have been informed of the requirements of our >>> legal department for electronic distribution. >>> (including being uploaded/(published) by a Commodore person) >>> >>>This is best accomplished to limiting distribution to those national >>>BBS systems. >>> >> >>Why doesn't USENET count as a "national BBS system"? Hell, if anything, >>it's better, cause it's International! >> > >Usenet is indeed international and I'd like to use >it as a distribution medium, but... >(yes, there's a but) > >a) Usenet news is trivially easy to fool. There's no real > protection against faking senders, messages, or anything. You (Commodore) can post checksums, etc. I know that that could be fooled with also, but at least it's some protection. > >b) as many net.lawyer.wanna.bees are quick to point out, a > Copyright is probably valid on a Usenet posted item, and > a license is probably not valid. > >("You mean to tell me that they just sent it to you unsolicited ?" > "Yes, Your Honor. My computer was just sitting there, and poof, > there it was in the spool directory. I didn't ask for it or anything.") > >(perhaps this is one reason that the GNU software hasn't been posted > to comp.sources ? Just wondering.) > The code could be "shrink wrapped" by uuencoding it. In front of the uuencoded stuff, would be the license agreement with the indication that "by uudecoding this, you agree to the above license....." -- "What is another word | Dave Lowrey | [The opinions expressed MAY be for 'Thesaurus'?" | Amdahl Corp. | those of the author and are not | Houston, Texas | necessarily those of his Steven Wright | amdahl!dwl10 | employer] (`nuff said!)