Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ece-csc!mcnc!rti-sel!sas!walker From: walker@sas.UUCP (Doug Walker) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: "Unauthorized" Sale of Redistributable Software Message-ID: <225@sas.UUCP> Date: Mon, 10-Nov-86 18:21:06 EST Article-I.D.: sas.225 Posted: Mon Nov 10 18:21:06 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Nov-86 09:23:37 EST References: <212@sas.UUCP> <8611020148.AA08257@cory.Berkeley.EDU> <111@elxsi.UUCP> <1264@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC Lines: 84 Xref: mnetor comp.sys.amiga:12 comp.sources.d:7 In article <1264@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > John Toebes is > upset that The Public Domain Software Connection is selling "his" version > of Hack, which he posted to the net for worldwide distribution, for $9, > which includes a $7 floppy disk.] If you are paying $7 for 3 1/2" DSDD disks, I have a bunch I can let you have. I just paid $1.39 each for a batch of Maxell DSDD 3 1/2" diskettes mail order. > If you make something that is in the public domain (as legally defined), > this means that you relinquish ownership and give ownership to "the public". > Anyone can do anything with public domain stuff, including gulling people > into paying money for things that they can get for free. True, but 1) Hack was NOT placed in the public domain, and 2) it is STILL UNETHICAL TO DO IT, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS LEGAL. > If you want to make money at software, don't give it away for free! > If you give it away for free, don't complain if people copy it for fees, > sell it, or even (gasp!) fix bugs and offer support to customers who buy it. BULLSH*T. If I give it away for free but retain the copyright, I see no need to refrain from complaining about people who take advantage of my work and the gullibility of consumers to make a fast buck. > I presume that if The Public Domain > Connection really wanted to make a product out of it, they could rewrite > that one file; it's only about 2K of source. (Referring to hack.graphics.c) 1) The point is, they DIDN'T rewrite the file. John's work is being used. 2) I'd like to see them make graphics hack work (or even text hack) by rewriting that one file. Ha Ha. A *lot* of work went into that program by an extremely able programmer, with help from several others. > In summary, John has a copyright on a small bit of the code. He wants > to use this as leverage to control whether a company (which sounds like > a one man operation) can distribute the whole piece of publicly > available software, to people who aren't lucky enough to be on Usenet > and don't want to pay for Compuserve or don't belong to a user's > group. Or who don't read AmigaWorld, where it was clearly stated that John is the author and how to get it for $6. Since AmigaWorld is the publication that ran the Public Domain Connection's ad, they are not reaching a different audience at all! > He doesn't want to sell it himself, he doesn't mind "friends" > selling it, but he minds "random people" selling it, or he is unwilling > for it to be sold for $9 to the same people who could get it for $8 > from his friends. Now THIS really pisses me off. NOBODY is making money on Hack on the 'normal' distribution channels, so back off when you say 'friends' are SELLING it. We distribute it for $6, NOT $8, which is enough to pay for a disk, postage, mailers, phone calls to Lattice for bug reports and fixes, Federal Express charges for sending disks to them with programs that illustrate a bug, printer paper, wear and tear on disk drives and so forth. Besides which, PD Connection sells Hack 1.01E (graphics version) on one disk for $9 and Hack 1.01A (text version) on a different disk for $9 MORE, whereas we ship BOTH on one disk. In addition, I believe they charge extra for shipping. > He neglects to mention in his flame that 99% of the > work was done by other people, who freely gave their efforts to him and > everyone else. He has a slight legal leg to stand on, but personally I > think is confused about what he wants and should think about it before > he flames again, or ports any other software around. I think his > statement "It is people like this that are working to destroy what > freeware/shareware/public domain is all about" applies more to himself > than to The Public Domain Connection. If the PD connection wanted to ship 1.01 Hack unmodified, or perform the port themselves, FINE. But surely you agree that if any work done by John or the Software Distillery is being distributed, then he (we) should have a say in it since it is copyrighted. > > I currently scan > net.wanted.sources and help people out for free. But if I really tried > to recover my costs, I'd charge a lot more then $2 plus media cost! Actually, more like $15.00 plus media cost. > If you are really interested in a well thought out rationale for "why I > am putting this software into the world" and a set of conditions that > match, see the GNU Manifesto and GNU copying rules. You don't have to > agree with Richard Stallman to appreciate that he knows what he is doing > and why he is doing it -- and how to get there. I can send you a copy > if you want one. I am definately interested in a copy. I think helping people out for free is a great idea, which is why I write Freely Redistributable software for the Software Distillery. However, I feel that if I, the author, don't receive any remuneration, no one should.