Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!gatech!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <1808@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sat, 14-Feb-87 09:34:38 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1808
Posted: Sat Feb 14 09:34:38 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Feb-87 04:44:28 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <1717@hoptoad.uucp> <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <11631@gatech.EDU>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 41

It's late, and maybe I really missed something, but am I the *only* person
who's upset that the ownership of the netnews software has been stolen
from the Usenet community?

>          Luckily for us, Mr. Adams is not charging or otherwise
> restricting the use of the software.

Gee, we are really lucky.  Let me guess, version 2.12 will cost us $500.
Just like registering a domain name or renting the key for a stargate decoder.
Also known as "how to make money off the once-free Usenet".  Somehow
as phone calls get cheaper, the price of Usenet membership keeps rising.

If we don't keep our rights, they will be usurped.  Who wrote this
stuff?  We did!  Rick sure didn't, though he had his hands in it.  He
certainly was willing to take the public domain 2.10.3 beta code and
insert my changes and a few other peoples' and call it 2.11, copyright by
him.

This happened to Macsyma.  MIT wrote it, using ARPA money (your
taxes).  Now you have to pay Symbolics thousands of dollars to get it
-- in binary! -- though it used to be public domain.  I call that
slimy.  Do you want this to happen to netnews?  Will Richard Stallman
have to rewrite netnews because the one the Usenet runs has become
licensed software?

Or am I the only person taking the copyright seriously?  The rest of you
would be glad to pay for the next version (buying back the code you
wrote) or would be glad to copy it illegally no matter who owns it?

[This is not to run down the work Rick did in assembling the software.
The release would not be out without him.  I would rather have public
domain 2.10.3 and no 2.11 existing than a privately owned 2.11 though.]

I would like Rick to abandon his claim and place the software back into
the public domain.  Is there a good reason for him to continue claiming
copyright, if he really doesn't plan to charge for (or otherwise control
the use of) the software?
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   gnu@ingres.berkeley.edu
Love your country but never trust its government.
		     -- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania