Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!seismo!mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!green!bill
From: bill@green.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <304@green.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Feb-87 16:12:59 EST
Article-I.D.: green.304
Posted: Thu Feb 19 16:12:59 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 16:39:23 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <1717@hoptoad.uucp> <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <11631@gatech.EDU> <1808@hoptoad.uucp> <163@mcdchg.UUCP>
Reply-To: bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa
Organization: JHU Biophysics Dept., Baltimore, MD
Lines: 43

In article <163@mcdchg.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (-Ron Heiby) writes:
>In article <1808@hoptoad.uucp> John Gilmore writes:
>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.

	First, a comment about the GNU copyright; there was a long
discussion in the appropriate groups about this and my understanding was
that you could sell it if you wanted to but you had to include source code
and the right to redistribute that source code.  Obviously, this is going
to dry up your market pretty quick unless you provide "support" for your
customers.

	There is one thing about Rick's copyright above that bothers me.
It says that no money can be made from the USE of this software.  Now, I
don't really know how "The WELL" operates, but it is my understanding that
they are a commercial system on USENET.  Does this mean that they can not
use 2.11?  Also, if a company uses 2.11 internally for shipping memos
around is there a problem?  (Quick sue AT&T :-).  Perhaps Rick Adams, could
be persuaded to remove the restrictions on use of the software.  If there
is someone with a better understanding of the law around, could they
comment on this possibility?

				Bill Bogstad

-- 

Bill Bogstad                              bogstad@hopkins-eecs-bravo.arpa
(301)338-8019                             seismo!mimsy!jhunix!green!bill
Moderator of mod.computers.ridge