Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!sloane
From: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: zoo'ed IBM-PC binaries?
Message-ID: <3844@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 89 15:20:50 GMT
References: <77800005@sts> <5978@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <13229@steinmetz.ge.com> <17652@genrad.UUCP>
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services
Lines: 22

In article <17652@genrad.UUCP>, jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) writes:
> I will concede that ZOO is a more portable program (as well as being a
> more CAPABLE program), and probably deserves to be the new standard.
> But what we REALLY need is a PUBLIC DOMAIN archive program with NO
> RESTRICTIONS WHATSOEVER.  Until that arrives, I don't see any reason to
> upset the applecart.

You mean we should wait until someone spends many hours creating a program,
and then wants to give it away for free, even to people who will sell it at
a profit?  My understanding of public domain is that you can do whatever you
want with it, including selling it for $250 per copy without giving the author
a dime. In the old days people did things like that. Not any more.  While I
don't personally agree with Rahul's restrictions concerning the redistribution
of ZOO by services like Compu$erve, the restrictions on ZOO are far more 
liberal than any comparable product we are likely to see.  Since Mr. Nelson
agrees that ZOO has more capabilities than ARC (tm of SEA), and it is available
to anyone on USENET for free, I think we should use it.
+-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+
|  Bob Sloane        \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is |
|  Computer Center    \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET   / my opinion, not my |
|  University of Kansas\  AT&T: (913) 864-0444         /  employer's.        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+