Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cuae2!mcdchg!heiby
From: heiby@mcdchg.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <163@mcdchg.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Feb-87 20:37:48 EST
Article-I.D.: mcdchg.163
Posted: Sun Feb 15 20:37:48 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Feb-87 20:26:57 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <1717@hoptoad.uucp> <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <11631@gatech.EDU> <1808@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: usenet@mcdchg.UUCP
Reply-To: heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (-Ron Heiby)
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL
Lines: 52

In article <1808@hoptoad.uucp> John Gilmore writes:
>Will Richard Stallman have to rewrite netnews because the one the Usenet
>runs has become licensed software?

>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, as I recall, the GNU software has a copyright on it.  It is not
in the public domain.  I can't do anything I want with it, like packaging
it with some other software and selling it for megabucks.  There is a
pretty restrictive notice on it saying that I can't sell anything that
contains GNU code.  That's fine with me.  If the GNU folks want to make
the fruit of their labors available with that kind of restriction, that's
their business.  As I see it, Rick has done the same thing with the Netnews
2.11 software.  He has placed a copyright notice on it.  Here is a copy of
it (out of batch.c).

 * This software is Copyright (c) 1985 by Rick Adams.
 *
 * Permission is hereby granted to copy, reproduce, redistribute or
 * otherwise use this software as long as: there is no monetary
 * profit gained specifically from the use or reproduction or this
 * software, it is not sold, rented, traded or otherwise marketed, and
 * this copyright notice is included prominently in any copy
 * made.

Doesn't sound too different from the GNU restrictions to me, except that
it's more succinct.  The only difference seems to be that the 2.11 software
was based on code that was originally in the public domain and that the GNU
stuff was never (?) in the public domain.  Really, John, I don't see what
you're "bitching" about.

No one's going to force me to pay $500 for the next version as long as
this one's available, and the notice makes it available for free.
Without the copyright notice, I could take the netnews software, compile
it on each of the different machines that I have access to, package it
up with laser printer copies of the documentation and sell it for *big bucks*
to anyone foolish enough to want to spend money to read all this drivel.
The copyright notice says not only that I can't do this, but that anyone
can get a copy for free.  (It does sound like I can make a small charge
to cover my costs, if I like, as long as I don't make a profit, but I
can't advertise any distribution service ("marketed").)  The only question
that comes to mind for me is that of "derivative works" (like bug fixes?).

Of all the people on this net, Rick is one of only about half a dozen
that I would trust to do what's right with all this.
-- 
Ron Heiby, cuae2!mcdchg!heiby	Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.os.unix
Motorola Microcomputer Division (MCD), Schaumburg, IL
"They are the best selling knives of its kind ever sold by us!" [sic(k)]