Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!ysub!doug
From: DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Egregious restrictions on source code in comp.sources.unix
Message-ID: <90122.182053DOUG@ysub.ysu.edu>
Date: 2 May 90 22:20:53 GMT
References: <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Youngstown State University VM system (YSUB)
Lines: 52

In article <973@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>, matt@group-w.uchicago.edu (Matt
Crawford) says:
>
>By now many of you will have noticed some absurd restrictions placed in
>the copyright notices on sources submitted by Dan Bernstein to
>comp.sources.unix.  The conditions include
>
>        o  No rights to the recipient except those explicitly granted.
>
This may seem a little harsh (legalese) but I see no problem with this.
Maybe I'm wrong.
>
>        o  The right to make and distribute exact copies, but not any
>           derivative forms, as long as no fee is charged.
>
I have heard numerous reports - most notable 'GONE EXEC', a program
often found in Bitnet-land on VM systems - where unauthorised changes
have been made to distributed code.  GONE's author spent much time on
debugging - or just tracking down - bugs that didn't exist in the code
he distributed.  I suspect that this is what he had in mind by
'derivative forms'.

As far as the 'no fee charged', such statements are common in shareware
and freeware distribution.  Usually allowance is made for processing
fees (tapes, diskettes, online service connect charges, etc) which are
charged for processing all software distributed via a particular source.
Dan Bernstein has chosen to not explicitly allow for this, so you may
have to contact him about permission to collect such fees.
>
>        o  Those rights, what few there are, are revocable upon
>           "written, oral, or other" notice, and are "automatically"
>           revoked on a certain date in the future.
>
This sounds like 'attorney-ese'.  It gives him the right eventually
sell this code commercially.  It does indicate that if he does so, then
copies of this software already in existence must be licensed.

Actions like this are also not common, but Buttonware took similar
action in withdrawing some of their shareware products from public
distribution.  Another vendor sold a product to different distributor,
who withdrew the source code, put CPUID and expiration date checks,
and raised the price substantially.  I don't recall whether the
existing customers were "grandfathered" in, or under what terms.

Personally, I think you're being a little harsh, although I understand
your concerns.  As we don't have a need for this type of software, I
won't be installing it anyway.

Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center,
Youngstown State University, Youngstown,  OH 44555
E-mail: DOUG@YSUB.BITNET, DOUG@YSUB.YSU.EDU
>> Constructive criticism welcome; flames ignored.