Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!MCL.UNISYS.COM!perry
From: perry@MCL.UNISYS.COM (Dennis Perry)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: building an interstate (data) highway with no roadmaps
Message-ID: <9106220929.AA13698@kauai.MCL.Unisys.COM>
Date: 22 Jun 91 09:29:37 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 27

Jason, although I agree the Library of Congress and National Archives are
very special organizations, having used them extensively in the 6 years
I have been in Washington, they are selective in what they keep, even if
parts must be submitted to receive a number.  For example, the LoC does not
keep old catalogs (no number?) in general, but they do keep old Sears 
catalogues (historical interest?)  Another government archive that comes
to mind is DTIC.  The government has tried to privatize DTIC, but industry
showed no interest because of the cost of maintaining a lot of information
that was not commercially of interest.  I think the government has the
same problem with Landsat pictures.

I suspect that what this illustrates is that commercial archives will select
material based on the probabiliy of making money, not on the intrensic value
of the material.  Thus we get the issue of maintaining historical archives
(old RFCs) vs current or standard RFC only.  Or in the case of software,
that which sells will be available and that which doesn't won't be.  This
is good from a commercial point of view, but may be bad from other points
of view, for what sells today, may not sell tomorrow and will be purged
from the archive.

I think there is room for both commercial and government archives.  In fact,
there exist today commercial ventures which sell that which is freely available
from the government.  Why do people pay for what is free?  Probably because
of the value added featrues such as accessability, packaging, convenience,
advertizing (i.e. knowing it is available), etc.

dennis