Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!mcnc!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: of flames and sources (was: Re: Fred - A terminal Program) Message-ID: <475@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Fri, 16-Oct-87 02:20:59 EDT Article-I.D.: brandx.475 Posted: Fri Oct 16 02:20:59 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Oct-87 03:29:41 EDT References: <246@ddsw1.UUCP> <203@papaya.bbn.com> <451@brandx.rutgers.edu> <244@coldbeer.UUCP> Distribution: alt Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 95 In article <244@coldbeer.UUCP>, roth@coldbeer.UUCP (roth) writes: > In article <462@brandx.rutgers.edu>, webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > > Then what is all this business about > > > >> XFRED represents a great deal of work on my part, over a year of > > > >> Xdevelopment. I have no real desire to market this as a product, but > > > >> Xif you find FRED useful, you might see your way to send me something > > > >> Xto recompense this development time. > > While I will admit that it isn't direct use of force, it really is > > just about as demanding as once can be in ASCII. Of course, I will > ^^^^^^^^^ > Demanding? It most certainly is not! It's only an appeal to the softhearted or > soft headed to send him some money. WRONG. It is an coercive appeal to honourable people (already an endangered species). > > ignore it, but again, I ignored the program that went with it as well > > (who wants to hassle with copyrighted sources anyway?). > > I do! And so do a lot of other people on the net. Copyrighted sources only > restrain me from incorporating it into company products or selling it to > a cutomer. I can keep it for my use and play with it to my hearts content. Obviously you didn't read the copyright notice. ALL RIGHTS WERE RETAINED. (see below.) > > `Panhandling' is exactly what you are doing. There are laws against > > that in many places in the U.S. Besides this you are also appearing > > But here is no law against it on Usenet, nor should there be. It might be > in bad taste, but there are lots of bad taste postings on Usenet that have I did not suggest that it was illegal on Usenet. Nor did I suggest that it should be. However, I claim that anyone who does things in ``bad taste'' should expect flames from people who don't feel tolerant at the moment. > > to donate a source while retaining: > > > >> XFRED is shareware, Pipe Dream Associates retains any and all > > > >> Xcopyrights to this software. It may be copied or uploaded so > > > >> Xlong as no attempt is made to charge for it. > > > > Swell, I can copy and download (oops only upload) it and that's it. > > Why won't you let me compile it? Run it? Fix it? Extend it? > You can compile, run, fix, and extend it and you know it. The only thing > you can't do is claim it as your work or sell it as your product. If you don't > intend to claim it as your work or sell it, why to you object to someone who > generously makes his source code available to the whole net and only asks > that his claim of authorship and right to commercially exploit his work be > respected? You seem to want it all, you want people to donate their software > and relinquish all their rights as the author. Nothing could have a more > chilling effect on the willingness of persons to post software of any utility > than to demand that they surrender all their rights. Hardly. Many people donate software in such a manner. Indeed, they are the ONLY people who DONATE software. The copyright claimed ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Given the paucity of software copyright law, it is unclear what rights that means. The only right that was specifically granted was the right to make copies of the software. Clearly no right to produce derivative works (modified copies) was granted. On a single-user machine in the privacy of your basement, you could probably get away with it, but what if I want to use part of it in a program that runs on a multi-user machine? What if it is being used on a machine running a bboard (and hence open to public access)? What if I want to pass on to others my ``fixes?'' What if I want to cross-compile it (in which case I would be producing the derivative object deck on a public-access machine, i.e., essentially publishing it to anyone who was interested in seeing what I was up to at the moment). It is not even clear if the Copyright wasn't violated by the first site to ``compress'' it before transmission. As far as I am concerned, copyrighted software raises so many issues that clearly it is a conspiracy of the lawyers. The fact that the shareware notice was mixed in with the copyright make the whole issue even messier. > Nonsense, no one makes money out of shareware, a cut of nothing is nothing. Some people make money off of shareware. Also, delivery and advertising of the software are being handled free by the net. Many people who sell the software in the ``normal fashion'' still loose money due to such costs. > You also fail to explain how Usenet will migrate into something like > Compuserve.I don't believe it is possible. Unfortunately, believability is not a prerequisite for existance. All commercial usage of the net tends us toward a commercial net. Look up the Oneida colony, once a utopian society - now a silver factory. ------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)