Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!ucdavis!csusac!utgard!chris From: chris@utgard.uucp (Chris Anderson) Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: WinComm Demo What would you want? Keywords: wincomm internet Message-ID: <1990Oct30.123655.15206@utgard.uucp> Date: 30 Oct 90 22:20:39 GMT References: <1990Oct26.220436.5899@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1990Oct27.020036.24200@cs.uoregon.edu> <9349@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> Distribution: usa Organization: QMA, Inc., Rancho Cordova, California Lines: 129 FollowupTo: comp.ms.windows ReplyTo: chris@utgard.UUCP (Chris Anderson) In article <9349@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jmerrill@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Jason Merrill) writes: >In article <1990Oct27.020036.24200@cs.uoregon.edu> akm@cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >>I think that anyone who wants to use the internet and its facilities >>for commercial enterprises, and I consider the whole business of beta >>testing wincomm a commercial enterprise, should consider if what they >>are doing is legal/or within the bounds of net ethics. Note that I >>don't know if it is legal or not, I am raising this issue. > >I don't really see what the problem is. Many commercial companies have >internet nodes of their own, and distribute their own software through >them. Apple comes to mind; people can grab the System software off of their >ftp site any time. (Please, let's not start another flame war about how >Microsoft should give away DOS and OS/2...) Do you have a copy of the >NSFnet charter? Does anyone here? Does anyone know the restrictions on >usage of .edu, .com and .mil sites? The Internet is restricted to *research* purposes. Educational sites qualify, as do most commercial sites on the net, since they have large R&D departments that contribute to research. Apple giving away copies of System probably does not, but rules (at the moment) are fairly lax about that. All sites, no matter what domain they are in, are bound by their regional net policies. >>I am pretty sure >>that wincomm would not meet the criteria for distribution that >>comp.binaries.ibm.pc operates under. > >I'm not so sure about that now. Mr. Davidsen has been talking about posting >a MINIX demo, which is also commercial software... USEnet and the Internet are two separate things, other than the Internet is one of the transport mediums that Usenet uses. A lot of Usenet traffic is not allowed if you apply the Internet policies in a strict sense. What comp.binaries.ibm.pc does has little to do with what an Internet site does. >>I don't know what it costs that diffuse entity "the net" when people >>ftp back and forth, but wincomm must have used up a lot of bandwidth, >>what with (when I last counted) 5 versions, and all prospective >>users/beta testers uploading each new version. > >I may be confused on this, but I don't think that bandwidth has any "cost" >in the Internet, but that links are purchased by time. All that the use of >bandwidth does is reduce the amount of bandwidth available. And doesn't the >"blame" for most of the bandwidth go to the interested users who are >downloading it, not Synappsys' representative? Of course there's a cost associated with bandwidth. If there are 100 users FTP'ing wincomm at the same time, then my telnet session is affected. So is my FTP session to site x. There is only so much bandwidth available, how it's parceled out is how the costs are determined. The cost of the links are part of it as well. If response time becomes unacceptable because of lack of bandwidth, then new links need to be purchased. Isn't that a cost? The users didn't ask for wincomm to be made available, the reps of Synappsys (sp?) did that on their own. So in what way is the user responsible for that? >>I would guess that >>Synapps doesn't even have a connection to the internet, so they have >>been using someone else's connection. If this is true, then they are >>not physically supporting internet. > >"physically supporting internet"? People who don't really need an internet >node shouldn't be required to get one, I don't think. Laying the fiberoptic >to Synappsys HQ from some other site would be likely to cost a LOT of >money. If they want to employ Butch to post Wincomm to the net, that's fine >with me. As soon as my school gets Ethernet to the dorms, I will be able to >buy an Ethernet card and have an Internet node of my very own, but I don't >see how I will be "physically supporting internet"... But Butch is using other people's money to promote the commercial success of someone else. That's like me going through your wallet and grabbing several dollars so that I can give it to my friends. Butch doesn't *own* the Internet connection he has... he used other people's resources. Now he's allowed to *use* those resources, for purposes that have been set down by his site admins, by his regional networks, and by the Internet as a whole. I don't think that this was what they had in mind. And, when you get your ethernet card, you *won't* be supporting the Ethernet. But your tuition that you payed *will* be. As well as any other user fees that are charged at your school for computer access. Synappsys, on the other hand, has *not* supported the Internet or it's members in any way. They used it's resources for their own ends. This is akin to theft. >>All this seems to me to be in violation of the reasons that the >>internet was set up, and is therefore disturbing. I would not have >>similar concerns if this was happening on something like compuserve, >>which is a commercial enterprise. > >What are the reasons that the internet was set up? Originally, the Internet >was the Arpanet, a purely military network. Now the Arpanet (or Milnet) is >just one leg of the Internet. The other major US leg is the NSFnet. I >believe the NSFnet charter was that connections have "educational value". >That condition is being used to wipe R&X rated pictures off of FTP sites, >but as I see it it could also be used to destroy most other FTP sites. How >does getting Graphics Workshop off of cica contribute to your education? It doesn't. And the purpose for the Internet is research. As I've said, the rules are rarely enforced. Software archives are not really part of the Internet charter: they're tolerated because of the benefits they bring to the members of the Internet. Enforcement of rules is lax, in part because the bandwidth of the Internet is sufficient for the member's needs. When that bandwidth becomes scarce, then the rules will be enforced more rigorously. Wincomm will not, in any case, make that much difference. But the principle is the same. I don't know if Butch took it upon himself to put wincomm on cica, or whether Synappsys asked him to. It doesn't really matter. What does matter, is that it was directly against the policy of the Internet to do so. Commercial packages do not belong on the net, unless they are being released with no strings attached. IMHO :) Chris -- | Chris Anderson | | QMA, Inc. email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | My employer never listens to me, so why should he care what I say? |