Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: proposal for net.sources.d
Message-ID: <1018@burl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Feb-86 16:25:01 EST
Article-I.D.: burl.1018
Posted: Mon Feb 10 16:25:01 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Feb-86 05:37:28 EST
Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 55
Summary: 

In an article to net.sources (and yes, it was justified there in this
extreme case), Bruce Wampler made some very good points -- I am taking
the liberties of cross-posting this original call for net.sources.d
to net.sources as well as net.news.group and of including pieces
of his original article.  PLEASE FOLLOWUP TO THIS ARTICLE IN net.news.group
ONLY!!!!  Thanks!

>**** FLAME ON ****
>	.
>	.	[talks of being flamed for posting a source
>	.	 availability notice]
>	.
>In case you missed the original announcement, I announced that SOURCE
>code for a cross assembler for a TI-9900 was available.
>
>	Apparently these little Hitlers would have me post 100K or so
>bytes of source code to the entire net for the benefit of maybe 10 or
>20 users.  That would have been ok - it was source itself.  But announce
>that the source is available for direct mailing, saving many $$$'s in
>phone bills by mailing directly to the interested parties - that's 
>inappropriate use of net.sources.  Well, I think these twits who tell
>me how to behave are inappropriate to net.sources.  I won't tell who
>they are, but no doubt they will flame me again.
>
>	Having been flamed once, I was a bit reluctant to post again,
>but it really makes me MAD.  In light of all the recent postings of
>copyright discussions, and the multitudes of "I didn't get part x
>of something", simply announcing availability of source seems
>perfectly appropriate.
>**** FLAME OFF ****
>	.
>	.	[Several "rules" (sensible ones) on when to post
>	.	 to mod.sources, when to post to net.sources, etc.]
>	.
>	5.  For all the little Hitlers out there: maybe we need
>something MORE than net.sources, net.sources.bugs, and net.sources.wanted.
>There seems to be real need for a place to post to discuss things
>about net.sources, and .bugs and .wanted don't fit the bill.
>We need net.sources.d or something like that.  Flaming people
>is NOT the answer.
>
Agreed.  100%.  This article proposes the creation of net.sources.d
(analogous in symbiotic function to net.jokes.d) for purposes of
directly-source-related discussions (i.e., copyrights, is this software
really public domain?, etc.), announcements of source availability
such as Bruce's, and ESPECIALLY THE "I DIDN'T GET PART x OF ..." POSTINGS!!

Send your votes to me via mail or phone (preferrably mail, please!)
and I'll post the results when the responses trickle down or are
overwhelming in one direction or another.
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj