Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekgen!tekigm2!phils
From: phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: WB 1.3.2
Keywords: legit?
Message-ID: <6097@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM>
Date: 8 Sep 89 19:31:28 GMT
References: <14203@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <7825@cbmvax.UUCP> <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> <7850@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Vancouver,  WA.
Lines: 120

In article <7850@cbmvax.UUCP> andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
<In article <6068@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) writes:
<>FLAME ON!!!
[ stuff deleted, some (but not all) of which I admit was too strongly 
  worded ]

<>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
Ok. Slip of the tongue.

<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.)
May I (calmly, I hope) point out here that, last I checked, there were 
export restrictions on 68020 processors (or, as I recall any processor which 
runs at above a certain clock rate). There are, in fact lots of other export
restrictions which could be construed to apply. Yet no mention was made of 
not running the new software overseas on 68020 processors. Without having 
the exact text of the license handy (I don't even think I've seen the entire 
text), I don't recall anything else being singled out *except* nuclear-related
stuff. 

<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.
Ok. This is where I really get to eat crow. At the time of my earlier posting,
I hadn't seen *any* mention of being available through dealers. I think if 
you'll scan the articles posted prior to that time, it really wasn't difficult
to come to the conclusion that the national BBS's were the *only* way you
could get the upgrade. Probably foolish of me to come to this conclusion, 
but I did. 

(It still doesn't help much, though. My "local" dealer is 30 miles worth
of city driving away.)

<
<You have a couple points:
[]
<
<2) you'd like us to do the maintance releases freely distributable as well as
<   free.
<   (most computer companies don't do either.)
This one I'll disagree on. I know that (at least on the product I work on)
we do free Maintenance releases. New major releases are a different story, 
of course. If we make a mistake in a release, we consider it to be our
responsibility to make our code work as specified for that release.

<
<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.)
No, I'd like virus writers and Usenet mail spoofers to go away and 
not bother us any more. (8-().

Actually, my original intent was to suggest separate distribution of byte 
count and checksum information from the code itself, where the virus writer 
can't as easily tweak it to suit his evil goals. This means that the virus
writer would have to make certain that his changes both matched the 
publicly known values *and* still remained a valid archive. Not as easily
achieved, I suspect. (Of course, I admit a chronic lack of knowledge in
this area.)

<
<>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.

Ok, net-folk. Consider this as my apology for the strong language. Can
I go back to work and stop answering the flood of mail in my e-mail box
now?

Regards,
Phil


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Staub, phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM
Definition: BUG: A feature (present or absent) which is (at best) inconvenient.