Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!mcnc!xanth!john
From: john@xanth.UUCP (John Owens)
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.groups
Subject: Re: Making binary groups obsolete (was Re:Are binary groups necessary?)
Message-ID: <2059@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Aug-87 12:28:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.2059
Posted: Tue Aug 11 12:28:33 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Aug-87 06:32:10 EDT
References: <266@brandx.rutgers.edu> <8225@utzoo.UUCP> <272@brandx.rutgers.edu> <321@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 21
Xref: mnetor news.admin:831 news.groups:1352

In article <321@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes:
> Huh?  Do they burn it or something?  Or is it that they have those
> funny new modems that can transfer binaries but not sources?  Or are
> you saying that people don't post the sources because of the copyright
> notices in them (although they feel free to post derivative works
> created by compilers)?

No, it's simply that the people who wrote the software have probably
never even heard of USENET, and they distribute the software in source
form.  The people who post the software usually don't know the
authors, and may not even know they authors' names.  The programs were
compiled and tested under one compiler with one set of libraries, and
may or may not work under any other compiler or version of compiler
(or libraries).  Does this mean we shouldn't distribute these
programs that may work flawlessly, whatever their source may look
like?

-- 
John Owens		Old Dominion University - Norfolk, Virginia, USA
john@ODU.EDU		old arpa: john%odu.edu@RELAY.CS.NET
+1 804 440 4529		old uucp: {decuac,harvard,hoptoad,mcnc}!xanth!john