Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:844 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18386
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: requests to post zoo
Summary: copyright
Keywords: ZOO COPYRIGHT
Message-ID: <3757@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 88 18:30:38 GMT
References: <3668@bsu-cs.UUCP> <521@irs3.UUCP>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 46

In article <521@irs3.UUCP> blacher@irs3.UUCP (Robert Blacher) writes:
>...did you realize
>your copyright statement (really a license) would prohibit the
>Capitol PC Users' Group, a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization,
>from putting ZOO on one of their disks?  The file was also
>refused by Compuserve when uploaded there, which they had to
>do in light of your "no more than $8 an hour" statement.

The copyright statement with version 2.01 source will allow virtually
unrestricted distribution of 1.71 and all prior versions, so nobody
will be denied the ability to extract any zoo archive.  Version 1.71
has all the essential features and no significant known bugs.  It's
distributed as AmigaDOS and MS-DOS binaries and the source is directly
compilable on VMS, 4.3BSD, and System V machines.  Version 1.71 zoo
can extract archives created by all existing and planned versions
of zoo.

I'll be happy to give the Capitol PC Users' Group, and any other
not-for-profit or nonprofit organization that asks, permission to put
zoo on its disks.  Anybody who doesn't like the copyright policy can
always say, "here's why you should let me distribute zoo on my terms",
and the copyright statement does say that the restrictions may be
relaxed by special agreement.

There are only a handful of organizations whose distribution terms
aren't already in compliance.  BBS sysops can distribute zoo, since they
typically don't violate any of the conditions in the copyright
statement.

There has been a tendency in recent years for people to collect free
software and attempt to restrict its further redistribution.  Besides
companies that sell microcomputer software this way (usually claiming
some sort of compilation copyright), there's also the example of
Berkeley collecting and distributing free software but requiring
recipients to not distribute it further without a license from AT&T.
(This seems to be changing now--a good trend.)  I think software authors
should fight this.  I'm all for no-holds-barred public domain or free
software, but it usually doesn't stay public domain or free for long.
So long as somebody is going to attempt to restrict distribution later,
I may as well make sure I pre-empt that attempt so it gets distributed
on terms that make sense to me, not to somebody else.

(I used to call Bob Blacher's excellent Computer Connection BBS at one
time.  I cancelled my PC Pursuit subscription though, and stopped
calling there.  Maybe I'll call again, Bob, if the BBS is still there.)
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi