Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!nrl-cmf!ukma!rutgers!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!b.gp.cs.cmu.edu!Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
From: Ralf.Brown@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Source ARCs are inappropriate!
Message-ID: <2365e048@ralf>
Date: 26 Oct 88 14:25:12 GMT
Sender: netnews@pt.cs.cmu.edu
Lines: 19
In-Reply-To: <7194@dasys1.UUCP>

In article <7194@dasys1.UUCP>, tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes:
}C.b.i.p. should carry only binary executables, fonts, control files and
}such.  Source should be shar'd and posted to comp.sources.*.  That's
}not what a BBS does, but this is not a BBS.

Does this mean that you volunteer to moderate comp.sources.msdos?  The fact of
the matter is that, unlike for the Atari, Mac, or Amiga, there is no sources
group for MSDOS machines.

Second, many copyrighted-but-free programs require that ALL files be
distributed together, i.e. in the original archive.  Splitting the binaries
and sources into different newgroups probably violates this requirement.  I
have even seen several programs which prohibit repacking with a different
archiver, much less splitting things up.

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: (412) 268-3053 (school)
ARPA: ralf@cs.cmu.edu  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
Disclaimer? I     |Ducharm's Axiom:  If you view your problem closely enough
claimed something?|   you will recognize yourself as part of the problem.