Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!ogicse!schaefer
From: schaefer@ogicse.ogi.edu (Barton E. Schaefer)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.mush
Subject: Re: X version of mush?
Message-ID: <21041@ogicse.ogi.edu>
Date: 7 May 91 03:26:08 GMT
References: <12641@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1991May6.121505.11107@cs.hope.edu>
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 89

In article <1991May6.121505.11107@cs.hope.edu> jipping@cs.hope.edu writes:
} 
} I understand that MUSH as gone commercial -- in the form of ZipMail from
} Zipcode, Inc. (or is that Zipcode Software, Inc.?)?

It's now called Z-Mail and the name of the company is Z-Code Software Corp.
There were prior-use problems with both of the Zip names (yes, the obvious
problem, in the case of the company name).

} I've also read -- in
} this group -- that users and/or potential porters of MUSH are expressly
} forbidden from producing an X version of same.  I understand that ZipMail
} is the X version of MUSH with some pretty funky enhancements.

This is an extremely brief overview of differences between mush and Z-Mail.

General Changes:

    GUI (X windows) access to nearly every operation.
    GUI mode customizable buttons.
    Shell functions.
    Filters and a filter mode (put zmail in your .forward).
    Multiple simultaneous open folders.
    Picks across multiple folders (GUI mode only).
    Fullscreen (curses) mode menus and user-buttons.
    Attachments (aka enclosures).
    Suspendable compositions (~z).
    Use of pre-prepared message templates.
    References: headers added and tracked on reply.

Things that are Gone:

    No SunWindows toolmode (sorry).
    No more automatic reading of /usr/lib/Mail.rc (too many conflicts,
        especially on SunOS where "|" has become a variable name (urk)).
    No source code distribution :-(.

O'Reilly & Assoc. (the Nutshell folks) will be publishing a Z-Mail
handbook, which will also discuss MUSH.

} Given that the above is correct (please right me if it is not), I have
} some questions:
} 
}    (1) Can someone -- even the authors -- retroactively place
}        restrictions on a piece software whose source has been placed in
}        the public domain?  

As has been pointed out in another posting, Mush has never been in the
public domain.  There has always been a copyright on it.  However, as
far as I understand it, the answer to your question is a limited "yes".
The limitation is that that restrictions can't be retroactive to any
copies of the work (be it software, written material, etc.) that were 
obtained prior to the "announcement" of the restrictions.  Someone can
probably correct me or expand on details; it's pretty fuzzy.  But it
doesn't matter in the case of Mush.

}    (2) If so, what in the MUSH copyright allowed me to compile it and/or
}        fix bugs I found in the first place?  Has that changed now that
}        restrictions have been placed on it?

Copyrights only cover what you've done to code you give to someone else.
You're allowed to rip pages out of books or scribble your crib notes
in the margins; you just aren't allowed make a bunch of copies and pass
them out, either before or after you make those notes or rip those pages.
Mush's copyright explicitly permits you to give it away as long as you
don't change it first (or charge for it); it is therefore *less*
restrictive than a general copyright.

} (3) Now, what about this --> using recently posted software, I can
}        generate a Sun devGuide-compatible specification of a SunView
}        application and eventually turn it into an OpenWindows
}        application.  (devGuide is a GUI design tool).  By rearranging the
}        buttons and windows, changing the code to match OpenWIndows/X
}        semantics, and calling this MUST (Mail User's Shell Two), have I
}        violated the restriction above.  Since I have a non-enhanced
}        version of MUSH, am I illegally in competition with Zipcode
}        Software?

No, you are not illegally in competition with Z-Code.  However, if you
give away or sell the resulting program, you are in violation of Dan
Heller's copyright.  If you bought a VHS copy of _Star_Trek_II_, re-
arranged the scenes, copied it onto Beta-format tapes with your mother's
voice dubbed in over Riccardo Montalban, and started selling it as
_The_Wrath_of_Mom_, you'd be in violation of Paramount's copyright.
Software copyrights work essentially the same way; they're just compli-
cated by ease of duplication and distribution.
-- 
Bart Schaefer                                           schaefer@zipcode.com
Z-Code Software Corporation                             schaefer@cse.ogi.edu