Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!cbmvax!bj
From: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Where is workbench 1.3.2 ??
Keywords: workbench,os
Message-ID: <20693@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 16 Apr 91 16:44:18 GMT
References: <1991Mar29.205911.5199@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1037@cbmger.UUCP> <1991Apr15.184408.1575@dg-rtp.dg.com> <1404@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>
Reply-To: bj@cbmvax.commodore.com (Brian Jackson)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 66

In article <1404@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes:
>In article <1991Apr15.184408.1575@dg-rtp.dg.com> poirier@ellerbe.rtp.dg.com (Charles Poirier) writes:
>>In article <1037@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes:
>>>In article <1991Mar29.205911.5199@hubcap.clemson.edu> cgehman@hubcap.clemson.edu (Corey Gehman) writes:
>>>>
>>>>I'm looking for workbench 1.3.2.  I thought it was released on the net,
>>>>either by anonymous ftp or a usenet group, but I can't find it anywhere.
>>
>>>You will never find any Workbench or other Commodore system disk on
>>>a public server (on a *legal* one), because all this stuff is
>>>copyrighted. You have to *buy* this. It's called "1.3 Enhancer Kit".
>>
>>>Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel  // E-Mail to  \\  Only my personal opinions... 
>>>Commodore Frankfurt, Germany  \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
>>
>>Excuse me if I am confused, but when I purchased the "1.3 Enhancer Kit", I
>>got 1.3 flat, not 1.3.2.  The latter was an incremental patch of some sort
>>distributed as freeware by someone from Commodore.  I believe this patch did
>>contain a copyright notice specifying permission to redistribute, under very
>>reasonable conditions.  Certainly one is required to *buy* 1.3 before the
>>1.3.2 patch can be applied; I don't think the original poster meant to imply
>>otherwise.

>I got my copy off a local BBS.  The following is the relevant portions
>of the file named LICENCE, which was included with the archive:
>
>>                    SINGLE COMPUTER END-USER
>>                   SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
 ...
 
>>	[...] YOU SPECIFICALLY AGREE NOT TO 
>>	DECOMPILE, MODIFY, NETWORK, RENT, LEASE, LOAN, SELL OR DISTRIBUTE 
>>	THE SOFTWARE, OR ANY COPY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART.  YOU UNDERSTAND THAT 
>>	UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A COPY OF THE SOFTWARE OR UNAUTHORIZED 
>>	TRANSFER OF  ANY COPY OF THE SOFTWARE MAY SUBJECT YOU TO A LAWSUIT 
>>	FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES.

The fact that you got it from a BBS already constitutes a violation
of the both the "can't distribute" clause and the "single computer end
user" clause (which the bbs operator is not.)  The BBS was distributing 
this illegally.  

If I understand it correctly, CBM did an experiment with the distribution
of the 1.3.2 upgrade to 1.3. It was licensed for electronic distribution on
GEnie, PeopleLink, BIX, (others?). 

Andy can undoubtedly address this more factually than I can but it is
not a simple matter of "uploading it to the net." There are all these
lawyers in the way.  CBM wants to control the distribution channels for
the OS so that users can go to a given place and feel fairly sure that
they got the "real thing" and not some cracker's version of the OS.

>Unfortunately, this seems to imply that I can't pass it along.  (Which makes
>no sense at all to me.)  

It makes sense if you look at it froom CBM's point of view.

bj

>Dave Schaumann      | We're so sorry, Uncle Albert.  But the kettle's

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 | Brian Jackson  Software Engineer, Commodore-Amiga Inc.  GEnie: B.J. |
 | bj@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com    or  ...{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!bj     |
 | "Paradise is exactly like where you are right now, only better."    |
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------