Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!cbmvax!andy From: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: WB 1.3.2 Keywords: legit? Message-ID: <7850@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 7 Sep 89 15:54:52 GMT References: <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 96 In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes: >FLAME ON!!! >How do you expect loyal readers of this newsgroup to take this elitist >crap? I have explicitly avoided these services(?) for financial and other >reasons, now you tell me that the only way I can legally get this upgrade >is to subscribe. BULL S**T. > >I can easily refute all three of the above arguments: Your posting are usually more factual, Phil; this was mostly opinion... >a) >Don't you know how to determine byte counts and checksums? Yes. I do. So do virus writers. It would take a half-decent programmer all of a day, max to circumvent a byte count/checksum 'protection' method, even if we use a scheme that bitnet couldn't handle. >b) >If you got it on usenet, the same would apply. You say you lost your net >access and therefore can't get updates? How about if you don't pay your >Compu$erve bill? true. Usenet fits that criteria. >c) >I want to know if Commodore really believes that this joke of a copyright >is any more valid or enforcable when posted on one of these dollar drains >than it is when posted here (or any other BBS). If so, I have lost a little >more of what little was left of my estimation of the competency of CBMs >management. It is not a copyright. It's a license. The software is copyrighted in any case. As for the license, I prefer to leave the actual question of whether or not a license is enforcable to the legal types. Is the GNU license enforcable ? Is any license enforcable ? Who knows ? Until something is tested in court, you never are really sure. But, on one of the "dollar drains" its not coming to your system unsolicited. (a copyright is still valid in that case, but a license probably isn't.. like a letter, the sender still holds the copyright on the contents, the reciever owns the media.) So the answer is yes, its more valid or enforcable when posted on one of those "dollar drains" then when posted here. Whether or not it is valid or enforcable at all I have no personal opinion on; but it is less so on Usenet. >And as for your previous "explanation" of the implication "no nukes" clause, >I don't buy that either. If it applies for international use, it applies to >domestic use as well. Come on CBM, grow up. This is just plain childish. No, it doesn't. It turns out that little things like the export control act seem to apply only to, umm, actual exports to other countries Sorry if the idea offends you, but apparently the US Government has laws that force companies to treat customers inside the US differently that customers outside the US. Talk to your company's export people if you don't accept this. (or think about DES and Unix exports for a minute.) >the wrong place to make this kind of political statement. If this clause is >to be included in all future CBM software releases, you might as well kiss >any hope of large-scale government acceptance of CBM products good bye. You Look, as I said, it APPLIES ONLY TO EXPORTS. This probably won't affect US government sales, since its to comply with a US government act. And, as I also said, a revised license will be ready soon, and will be attached to the ZOOs where I've posted them. The intention of electronic distribution was to get maintance releases out faster to a good number of people. The other channels (like your dealer) still exist. You have a couple points: 1) You don't like US international laws. (we're can't do much about that) 2) you'd like us to do the maintance releases freely distributable as well as free. (most computer companies don't do either.) 3) You'd like virus writers and Usenet mail spoofers to be defeated by a byte count and checksum. (so would I, but I don't think it has a chance.) >Phil andy -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. Life gets pretty complex the minute you stop mooing. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.