Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!hao!woods From: woods@hao.UUCP Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews... Message-ID: <545@hao.UCAR.EDU> Date: Thu, 19-Feb-87 15:44:14 EST Article-I.D.: hao.545 Posted: Thu Feb 19 15:44:14 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 21:13:19 EST References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1320@hplabsc.UUCP> Reply-To: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 105 Summary: Pot calling the kettle black... In article <1320@hplabsc.UUCP> taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes: >Gee, Larry. I'm sure glad that you have such a mature and intelligent >way of dealing with serious and important issues. I saw nothing immature or stupid in Larry's posting. It seemed quite well thought out to me. Oh, I guess it's because he disagrees with YOU... >It certainly makes *me* want to listen to what you have to say... I agree, Dave. And calling me "always loud and obnoxious" and Larry (by implication) "immature and stupid" really makes us want to listen to what YOU have to say. It does work both ways, you know. >>The only way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code, >>or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself. > >Suprise! That isn't the case. That is a blanket statement that simply cannot be applied in all cases. Regardless of how they define "sufficient modifications" needed to be copyrightable, there will always be a gray area. For example, if Larry didn't have a copyright on 'rn', what would stop me from replacing the pager part with one of my own that makes the display look different, and then putting my own copyright on it? At the very least, it would take a long and expensive lawsuit. And if it's in the public domain, who's going to sue me? Yes, you could say someone would be stupid to buy my version when Larry's is available for free, and I'd agree, but legally I'd be in the right. Who could tell me I'm wrong? With Larry's copyright, surely you can see that it is now a much more clear-cut issue. Now LARRY could sue for copyright infringment and probably win. In addition to this, when this kind of modification has to have the Larry's permission to be distributed, we run a much lower risk of having 20 different incompatible versions of the program out there. Look at all the problems we have because people are running different versions of netnews software. >with all deference to Rick and the rest of the people who have worked >on it, it is hardly in a state where we can freeze it and not need any >further development. I don't think Rick would argue that. I certainly wouldn't. But it would be nice if the development effort were organized, so that everyone contributes ideas and the best get chosen and implemented, instead of having 20 different "new" versions of news come out (what would the odds be that they are all compatible?). As you and John Gilmore both said, many other people's ideas and code were included in "Rick's" code. I see no reason to suddenly assume that that will no longer be the case in the next release of news. >We need to see some radical software evolution... At the very least, this is debatable, but I'm sure Rick (and Larry, and the backbone cabal, and...) is open to your suggestions. As it happens, news 2.11 itself represents at least a few radical changes (to the point where it is no longer compatible with previous versions; see how much trouble has been caused by THAT! If we had everyone developing their own version of news, that problem would surely grow worse. >What concerns me the most is that, damn it, USENET is supposed to >be a totally free-for-all anarchistic system. Wake up and smell the coffee. It ain't free. Lots of us, including your company, pay real dollars to keep it going. Them who pays gets to choose. And, as someone else suggested, if you don't like the way the backbone admins are going, there is nothing to stop you from setting up your own links and carrying whatever groups you want and running whatever software you like. Then, since you would be paying YOU could have decision-making power. And as it happens, even the backbone is not "all" powerful. Ideally we would like everyone to understand why we do what we do, but every time we try, we get flamed to death, so why bother? >if we're going to suddenly have ownership of >the *one piece of software that makes USENET a reality* then we might >as well all go join FIDOnet or something. Nothing is stopping you. >Or are you still waiting with the annoying >childish comments that you made in your original posting?? How mature of you, Dave. A bit obnoxious too. Sounds like we now have the pot calling the kettles black. >And again, this is *NOT* an attack on Rick, or a questioning of his >integrity. I wish people would clue in on that. You could have fooled me. Looks like you did a pretty good job of pulling the wool over Larry's eyes too. I join Larry in protesting the constant attacks that Rick suffers for all the work he has *voluntarily* done. This applies to a lesser extent to the rest of the backbone admins as well. Sure, we're not perfect, but Usenet is still alive despite exponential growth, and that's good for something. I can tell you this: if Rick Adams starts charging for netnews software, I'll be the first to blast him for it. But I see no reason to believe that that is what he plans. I think the sole purpose of the copyright is to attempt to standardize news software. I agree with that goal, and I can't think of anyone whom I trust more with that goal and whose copyright I'd rather see on that software than Rick Adams. --Greg UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu -- UUCP: {hplabs, seismo, nbires, noao}!hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA INTERNET: woods@hao.ucar.edu