Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ut-sally!ghostwheel!ned
From: ned@ghostwheel.UUCP (Ned Nowotny)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: v11INF3:  Poll on copyrights
Message-ID: <111@ghostwheel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Oct-87 19:05:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ghostwhe.111
Posted: Wed Oct 21 19:05:50 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 07:55:16 EDT
References: <4899@ncoast.UUCP> <31209@sun.uucp> <31218@sun.uucp> <212@papaya.bbn.com>
Reply-To: ned@ghostwheel.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ned Nowotny)
Organization: MCC Database Program, Austin, Texas
Lines: 38

In article <212@papaya.bbn.com> rsalz@uunet.uu.net (Rich Salz) writes:
>Jim Cotrell made the mistake of posting a reply, rather than just mailing
>me his vote.

Why is it a "mistake" to start a discussion on software copyrights?  Flame
Wars are not necessarily a bad thing if readers have an opportunity to learn
the opinions of their fellow professionals.  After all, comp.sources.d is a
"discussion" group.

>If you want your opinion to affect what I do with comp.sources.unix and
>copyrighted software, then please! DO NOT! post discussions or start
>flamewars in this newgroup, or other mailing lists.  If I even get to
>read your article, you can rest assured I will attach it no credence.

Who says that a posting to comp.sources.d on the subject of software copyrights
is intended to influence the moderator?  Perhaps a disscussion of the reasons
for copyrights on freely distributed software and the reactions people have
to such software is needed.  Judging by Jim Cotrell's followup and the
responses to it, such a discussion may be well worthwhile.

Frankly, I can see nothing wrong with placing a copyright on an original
work which is then given away (i.e. freely distributed on USENET and through
other media).  Whether money changes hands or not, there are good ethical and
legal reasons for respecting copyright notices.  It does not matter whether
appropriate legalese was used in wording the notice or whether the copyright
is, in fact, enforcible as a practical matter.  Such notices should be
respected, or the software should not be used or kept by those who object.
And of course, no one should take another person's original work and sell
it for profit without the express consent of the author.  This consent can
be given by an explicit declaration that the work in question has been
placed in the public domain, but it should not be assumed that publicly
available material is de facto public domain.

Ethics may seem abstract, but such abstractions, when commonly accepted, make
it a great deal easier to live with reality.


Ned Nowotny (ned@ghostwheel.aca.mcc.com.UUCP)