Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software Message-ID: <1311@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 14:28:40 EST Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1311 Posted: Tue Feb 17 14:28:40 1987 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Feb-87 20:19:09 EST References: <1808@hoptoad.uucp> <539@hao.UCAR.EDU> Reply-To: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA Lines: 119 Greg Woods recently posted a rather heated reply to some excellent points that John Gilmore made. I'd like to make some comments on the exchange: John posted "..am I the *only* person who's upset that the ownership of the netnews software has been stolen from the Usenet community?" to which Greg replied: > STOLEN??! Are you serious or just paranoid? News 2.11 is one of the >most widely distributed pieces of FREE (do you know what that means?) >software on the entire net. How can you steal what is being given away >for free?? Is it late, or am *I* missing something? I strongly disagree with what Greg says here. The distribution mechanism for netnews means that it is *freely licensed* but it is *NOT* free. It is also not public domain. It is similar to how Elm and the GNU software is shipped, I believe. As to whether it is a good thing or not, well, if Rick Adams really did spend an enormous amount of time on the software then it is not unreasonable for him not to release it into the public domain - that is certainly his perogative (witness Lauren and the uucp-on-pc situation). The real question I think is whether we should USE this software versus having a group of people (I'd be interested in being included) rewrite the netnews software with the explicit understanding that it has NO copyright and has NO limitations on its distribution. NOTHING. Totally public domain. THAT would be A Good Thing. >>Gee, we are really lucky. Let me guess, version 2.12 will cost us $500. > > I doubt it. If it does, *we* sure won't be running it and neither >will most other sites on the net! You'd be pretty suprised, Greg. I talked to some people yesterday and I mentioned that exact thing - 'what if it cost money to get the next release of netnews?' and they replied 'if that was the only way we could get it we'd buy it. (gregbo also made an interesting comment about how he was of the impression that the news 2.11 implementation "team" talked for a while about making it incompatible, thereby forcing sites to update. If someone really wanted to make money in the netnews community one could come up with an incompatible system, give free copies to 'backbone sites' (plus a 1% kickback?) and then CHARGE THE HELL OUT OF LEAF SITES. *THAT* is the kind of thing that we might just see on this Brave New Net if we aren't careful). >>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. That is true. I've always had some serious misgivings about the Stargate project, not the least of which is that I can see some backbone sites saying "well now there's stargate so we won't ship out articles any more." (it *is* a logical extension). That would be A Bad Thing. I am firmly unconvinced that Stargate is going to be worth the time and effort to use. Not to mention the problems with reliability of transmission, and so on... The deal with paying for a domain registration is even more of a really bad setup. As Greg was, I was shocked to hear that the USENIX Usenet group was going to *charge* money for domain registration. So much for the public orientation of the Usenet... And quite frankly I don't really care if they are making money or not. That is *NOT* the issue here. The issue is that hosts that want to join usenet now are not merely stuck having to find a local feed for mail and later news, but are now tied into an administration, and have yearly registration fees and on and on. This is a very bad trend. Again, perhaps we should consider an alternative... Greg Woods then says: "True, we don't have to be a backbone site, but SOMEBODY DOES" That I disagree with. We could do perfectly well by eliminating the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout of 50 or more. It is a matter of convenience and logistics that cause us to have backbone sites. In fact, I think the net would be *better* if we didn't have backbone sites at all. It would certainly be more of an anarchy, which I would view as a very positive move from the more-and-more legislated playground for certain people that it has become... (my biggest disappointment is that the usenet community just sits back and lets this all happen...) (but it isn't suprising) As far as using phone bill cost as a reason for anything, then my reply is "then let's change the topology!". I don't think it is a good justification for having more limited newsgroups, more moderation, or whatever else is "in the works". John comments; > He [Rick Adams] 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 is quite disturbing. Enough so that I am going to seriously propose that we create a group to come up with a competing netnews software that is 100% public domain. More in a different posting. A final note: once software is released in the public domain it CANNOT be copyrighted by someone. It has already been distributed without the copyright notice so it is de facto public. The same holds true for anything that doesn't have the 'correct' copyright notice. Check it out if you don't believe me. ---- As a general comment, I think that what John was saying in his posting was reasonable and also a source of concern for the community. I think he asked some reasonable questions and made some valid observations. Greg Woods, on the other hand, came across as he, alas, always does: as a loud obnoxious person. I found his reply very bad, not only full of innacuracies, but also ignorant of certain realities of life. It was also unforgivably rude to John. -- Dave Taylor