Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!samsung!uunet!mdisea!mitchell
From: mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Request for permission (Important)
Message-ID: <1991May21.150811.1106@MDI.COM>
Date: 21 May 91 15:08:11 GMT
References: <9898@star.cs.vu.nl> <9105201140@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org>
Sender: news@MDI.COM
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Lines: 58

In article <9105201140@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org> waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org (Fred 'The Rebel' van Kempen) writes:
>ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) wrote:
>> Open letter to everyone who has contributed utility programs or other
>> recognizable software to MINIX.  As a practical matter, it does not apply
>> to bug fixes and other items that would not be recognizable as copyrightable.
>Humm.
>
>> It also doesn't apply to those people who have already filled in the permission
>> form.  This step does not mean that anything is going to change.  It is just
>> that the lawyers want to know that they really have permission to use people's
>> software.  It is also useful to me to know what is copyright and what is
>> public domain.   At present, this is not always clear.  Lack of any notice
>> usually means copyright, but not always (depends on whether the country it
>> was written in was a signatory to the Berne Convention at creation time.)
>HummHumm.
>
>Does filling in this form mean that one actually gives Prentice Hall
>permission to sell the software for profit?  Usually, programs intended
>for a general public (see "GNU Copyleft" and such) have the clause
>that "this software may not be used for commercial purposes".
>
>Looking at the way MINIX is going, I am getting really confused when I
>see postings like these appear on the net (admitted- I saw this form
>a _long_ time ago, but what the heck).  Could you please explain this
>in public?
>
>I think Prentice Hall has a right to know which software they can use
>and which not, but I also think they should tell the people what they
>will do with their rights.  Non-exclusive right to _use_ the software
>(see below, in the form) includes the non-exclusive right to _sell_
>that product for profit.  Nothing about such matters can be found in
>the form...
>
>I hereby would like all people to shell out and rewind to the "Your
>articles sold for Cash" discussion some time ago, in which The MINIX
>Centre (UK) was accused of making true money off other people's work,
>posted on the net as "here is my work, please feel free to _use_ it".
>
>Before anyone sends in this form (myself included, of course), I would
>like to see several of these items cleared up.  Andy?  PrenHall?
>

Yes.  Please.  Let's clear this up.

I'd hope to see the non-PH-copyright stuff freely distributable by
whoever wants to distribute it, with no restriction on selling it for
profit.  Such a restriction only discourages/retards distribution.
Nobody is going to make a zillion dollars distributing this stuff,
and if they do they've distributed it widely enough to have done the
world a favor.

Settle for Fame & Glory, but don't expect Riches from your contributions.
Allow PH to distribute it bundled in with copyrighted minix.  Discourage
PH from interfering with others who also distrubute non-PH-copyright
minix related items.

-- 
mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)