Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell.com!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: copy protection
Message-ID: <90696@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 2 Feb 91 23:39:19 GMT
References: <9101272223.AA08327@desktalk.com> <6207@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> <14127@scorn.sco.COM>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 36
Nntp-Posting-Host: gauss.llnl.gov


| From: ericd@sco.COM (Eric Davis)
| 
| Some of the information in this post is incorrect. I do not want to use
| network bandwidth to explain the issues, however I would be more than
| willing to email concerned individuals directly about the the copy
| protection scheme and how it affects system adminstration and users.
| From a techinical and adminstrative point of view SCO's implementation of
| a copy protection scheme it is not the limiting monster that it is
| thought to be. Please take time to understand the facts.

  You didn't help your case in the least with those two incredibly large
and redundant postings.

  First, all the material you quoted had already hit TCP-IP.  You didn't
add any new information in your posting.  If all you wanted to do was to
take the discussion out of a public forum by offering to discuss the
issues privately with individuals, that's all you should have said.
Including the vast amount of already posted material is just going to
piss people off.

  Second you sent the note out twice, but I'll assume that was merely a
mistake on your part.

  As for wanting to take the discussion off of TCP-IP, there have been a
few complaints about the appropriateness of discussing network copy
protection / licensing on TCP-IP from a few people, but since it really
*IS* a network issue, I think that a majority of TCP-IP readers are
probably tolerant of, if not actively interested, the subject.

  I for one would like to see SCO defend its use of network licensing via
broadcast messages.  I have to admit being biased towards disliking it
intensively, but I'd like to hear SCO's arguments.  It may result in some
very productive discussion and decisions.

Casey