Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:936 comp.sys.ibm.pc:18774
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!hoptoad!dasys1!tneff
From: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: requests to post zoo
Keywords: ZOO COPYRIGHT
Message-ID: <6263@dasys1.UUCP>
Date: 6 Sep 88 03:33:14 GMT
References: <3668@bsu-cs.UUCP> <521@irs3.UUCP> <3757@bsu-cs.UUCP> <522@irs3.UUCP> <3839@bsu-cs.UUCP> <1043@bucket.UUCP>
Reply-To: tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff)
Organization: Independent Users Guild
Lines: 24

It's painful to read Rahul's response to Bob Blacher.  Basically I hear
"nolo contendere" there... Rahul favors certain rate structures (and by
extension, the services offering those rate structures) and wants to
try and enforce his preference in the 2.01 distribution agreement.  Bad
for two reasons -- Rahul has no clout at all unless & until his
archiver becomes a universal standard, which on its technical merits it
deserves to be, except it hasn't got a prayer if it comes laden with
restrictive clauses this early in the game.  Nobody, NOBODY is gonna be
fooled.  Second reason is that the $8.00 rule is bogus in itself.  When
measuring downloading expense, the cost ought to be measured in dollars
per kilobyte, not per hour.  For instance, it's usually cheaper to grab
a file at 2400bps from CIS than from GEnie at 1200 or 2400, because of
the protocol and speed differentials.  Rahul has better things to do
than try to be a "market factor" in how much these services charge the
kiddies to peck away at Spacewar, which is where the big price
differences kick in.

At bare minimum, the looz extractor must be distributable without
restriction or zoo is a dead duck.  Beware negative publicity, as Phil
K. might say.
-- 
Tom Neff			UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
	"None of your toys	CIS: 76556,2536	       MCI: TNEFF
	 will function..."	GEnie: TOMNEFF	       BIX: t.neff (no kidding)