Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!marque!gryphon!greg
From: greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: some (should-be) ground-rules for submissions to comp.binaries.*
Message-ID: <4261@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Date: 30 May 88 10:09:45 GMT
References: <2689@utastro.UUCP> <699@lakesys.UUCP> <307@spt.entity.com> <8297@dhw68k.cts.com> <5145@dcatla.UUCP> <11637@sunybcs.UUCP>
Reply-To: greg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Greg Laskin)
Organization: Trailing Edge Technology, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 28

In article <11637@sunybcs.UUCP> jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes:
>In article <5145@dcatla.UUCP> 	Larry Kollar writes:
>>To reduce the amount of binaries on the net,
>	What ever for? ...
>
>	... You seem to consider Sources intrinsically more valuable than
>Binaries.  
>	Not everybody has the apropriate compiler/interpreter/assembler.

The question is really whether we're just going to grab everything off
every BBS and redistribute it over USENET.  <-- hyperbole -->

Source code is usually the original work of the poster as are most of
the other postings to USENET.  It's not difficult to build a case for
distributing a binary version of, say, uemacs for those without
the proper compiler because uemacs is, by and large, a USENET "product."
Therefore, it's not difficult to make a case for the binary groups.

Third party postings of binaries culled from other information providers
are more problematical.  Such usage may be outside the scope of the
"reasonable" amount of service that network sites might be expected to provide.
In fact, I feel much the same about some of the other high volume
retransmission by third parties that I've seen go by in the last
few months and not just binaries.

I don't recall much discussion of this point.  What do we think?
-- 
Greg Laskin  greg@gryphon.CTS.COM    <any backbone site>!gryphon!greg