Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!killer!igloo!bhv
From: bhv@igloo.Scum.COM (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: ZMODEM
Keywords: zmodem file transfer cheapskates
Message-ID: <1184@igloo.Scum.COM>
Date: 2 Mar 89 13:00:03 GMT
References: <1163@igloo.Scum.COM> <4700@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> <1179@igloo.Scum.COM> <5976@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris)
Distribution: usa
Organization: igloo, Northbrook, IL
Lines: 39

In article <5976@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In article <1179@igloo.Scum.COM> bhv@igloo.UUCP (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>     ...the ZMODEM protocol itself _is_ public domain, and its
>     development was funded by a major modem maufacturer (I don't
>     recall which one offhand).  One of the reasons that I specifically
>     dislike DSZ's commercialism is that there is a long past history
>     of public domain communications protocols - and I would like to
>     see these protocols remain in the public domain, and _not_ be
>     commercialized.
>
>The zmodem protocol was diesigned by the author of DSZ.  He has already
>released free source code for zmodem, written in C, for UNIX and
>VAX/VMS.  I don't think we should begrudge him trying to make a little
>money from a shareware release of DSZ.
>-- 
>Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
>                    ARPA:  dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu


I just rechecked the Byte article, and the development of the ZMODEM protocol
was not funded 'by a major modem manufacturer' - it was funded by Telenet.
Yes, Forsberg (the author of DSZ) was listed as being the devoloper of
the protocol.  I won't fault him for trying to make more money off his
work than he received from Telenet - I will fault him for the manner in 
which he is trying to do it.  (By 'manner', I specifically mean the 
documentation of DSZ - not the fact of distributing a ZMODEM implemenattion
by Shareware).  It (the documenatation) did not sit well with me at all -
it seemed much more oriented twoards fufiling the author's emotional
needs than my needs as a user.  I think that there is a good chance that
a re-write of this documenatiton in a less emotional and more professional
manner would increase the number of people willing to subscribe to the
product.  It would, at least, increase _my_ willingness to support the
author.

BTW - the 'Byte' article did not directly claim that ZMODEM was public 
domain.  I believe this to be the case, but I have not yet seen this
in writing.
-- 
bhv@igloo