Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-lcc!lll-crg!hoptoad!gnu
From: g...@hoptoad.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b,comp.sources.d,comp.os.minix
Subject: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <1765@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sat, 7-Feb-87 14:04:37 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1765
Posted: Sat Feb 7 14:04:37 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Feb-87 06:36:29 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <1717@hoptoad.uucp> <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>
Followup-To: news.software.b
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 43
[Discussion is hereby moved to news.software.b from comp.os.minix.]
In article <1...@hoptoad.uucp> I write:
> Since netnews runs on 11's, it can be ported to Minix. Note that all the
> netnews software is public domain already (even though recent versions
> have an invalid copyright notice by Rick Adams: the software was written
> by many people and contributed by them to the public domain).
In article <43...@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV>, r...@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes:
> The copyright notice IS valid. One of the things you can do with public
> domain software is stick your copyright notice on it. The point of my adding
> the copyright notice is to keep someone from doing the same thing and trying
> to sell it as theirs.
>
> Public domain means that anyone can do anything with it. That includes selling
> it, claiming they wrote it, etc.
But since the software is actually public domain, Rick's copyright holds no
force. Anyone can do anything with it, including remove the copyright
notice, or insert their own. A copyright is not a bunch of words, it's
the ownership of some information. If Rick doesn't own netnews, then his
notice in the source claiming to own it is just a bunch of empty words.
It doesn't "keep someone from doing the same thing and trying to sell it
as theirs". It just complicates the legal situation around people making
legitimate use of netnews, since the words that come with it don't accurately
describe the legal status of the code.
Now it *is* possible to copyright an "arrangement" or "collection" of public
domain information; e.g. a telephone book is copyrighted this way, since
they don't own the names and addresses -- just the arrangement. Rick could
be claiming to own the arrangement of the 2.11 netnews release, while the
public owns the individual pieces of code, but again this strikes me as
needlessly cumbersome and inappropriate.
We've had enough trouble with people sticking "this is public domain" notices
on Unix sources and such -- let's not stick "this is copyright" notices on
PD stuff either. Especially PD stuff that so many people from our own
community have labored over.
--
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu g...@ingres.berkeley.edu
Love your country but never trust its government.
-- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania
(terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode, NSA, CIA, NRO.)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!gatech!spaf
From: s...@gatech.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <11631@gatech.EDU>
Date: Sun, 8-Feb-87 17:45:33 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.11631
Posted: Sun Feb 8 17:45:33 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 9-Feb-87 04:42:48 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <1717@hoptoad.uucp> <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <1765@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: s...@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford)
Organization: Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech
Lines: 20
Summary: John Gilmore claims that Rick Adams' copyright notice in the
netnews source is not valid and should be ignored, removed, etc.
Note that I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Rick can
indeed copyright that software since he has made extensive changes
and bug fixes to it, including adding some additional code. The last
public posting of code without a copyright notice was probably 2.10.2
and anyone wishing to can do with that as they wish. However, any
copies of 2.11, or derivations from 2.11, still must respect
Rick's copyright.
In layman's terms, he put in a major effort to modify and adapt someting
in the public domain, and he can legally claim a copyright on the
result. Luckily for us, Mr. Adams is not charging or otherwise
restricting the use of the software.
--
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: S...@gatech.EDU
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!gatech!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!gnu
From: g...@hoptoad.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <1808@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sat, 14-Feb-87 09:34:38 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1808
Posted: Sat Feb 14 09:34:38 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Feb-87 04:44:28 EST
References: <962@osiris.UUCP> <1717@hoptoad.uucp> <43093@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <11631@gatech.EDU>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 41
It's late, and maybe I really missed something, but am I the *only* person
who's upset that the ownership of the netnews software has been stolen
from the Usenet community?
> Luckily for us, Mr. Adams is not charging or otherwise
> restricting the use of the software.
Gee, we are really lucky. Let me guess, version 2.12 will cost us $500.
Just like registering a domain name or renting the key for a stargate decoder.
Also known as "how to make money off the once-free Usenet". Somehow
as phone calls get cheaper, the price of Usenet membership keeps rising.
If we don't keep our rights, they will be usurped. Who wrote this
stuff? We did! Rick sure didn't, though he had his hands in it. He
certainly was willing to take the public domain 2.10.3 beta code and
insert my changes and a few other peoples' and call it 2.11, copyright by
him.
This happened to Macsyma. MIT wrote it, using ARPA money (your
taxes). Now you have to pay Symbolics thousands of dollars to get it
-- in binary! -- though it used to be public domain. I call that
slimy. Do you want this to happen to netnews? Will Richard Stallman
have to rewrite netnews because the one the Usenet runs has become
licensed software?
Or am I the only person taking the copyright seriously? The rest of you
would be glad to pay for the next version (buying back the code you
wrote) or would be glad to copy it illegally no matter who owns it?
[This is not to run down the work Rick did in assembling the software.
The release would not be out without him. I would rather have public
domain 2.10.3 and no 2.11 existing than a privately owned 2.11 though.]
I would like Rick to abandon his claim and place the software back into
the public domain. Is there a good reason for him to continue claiming
copyright, if he really doesn't plan to charge for (or otherwise control
the use of) the software?
--
John Gilmore {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu g...@ingres.berkeley.edu
Love your country but never trust its government.
-- from a hand-painted road sign in central Pennsylvania
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: tay...@hplabsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <1311@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 14:28:40 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1311
Posted: Tue Feb 17 14:28:40 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Feb-87 20:19:09 EST
References: <1808@hoptoad.uucp> <539@hao.UCAR.EDU>
Reply-To: tay...@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 119
Greg Woods recently posted a rather heated reply to some excellent points
that John Gilmore made. I'd like to make some comments on the exchange:
John posted "..am I the *only* person who's upset that the ownership of
the netnews software has been stolen from the Usenet community?"
to which Greg replied:
> STOLEN??! Are you serious or just paranoid? News 2.11 is one of the
>most widely distributed pieces of FREE (do you know what that means?)
>software on the entire net. How can you steal what is being given away
>for free?? Is it late, or am *I* missing something?
I strongly disagree with what Greg says here. The distribution mechanism
for netnews means that it is *freely licensed* but it is *NOT* free. It
is also not public domain. It is similar to how Elm and the GNU software
is shipped, I believe.
As to whether it is a good thing or not, well, if Rick Adams really did
spend an enormous amount of time on the software then it is not unreasonable
for him not to release it into the public domain - that is certainly his
perogative (witness Lauren and the uucp-on-pc situation). The real question
I think is whether we should USE this software versus having a group of
people (I'd be interested in being included) rewrite the netnews software
with the explicit understanding that it has NO copyright and has NO
limitations on its distribution. NOTHING. Totally public domain.
THAT would be A Good Thing.
>>Gee, we are really lucky. Let me guess, version 2.12 will cost us $500.
>
> I doubt it. If it does, *we* sure won't be running it and neither
>will most other sites on the net!
You'd be pretty suprised, Greg. I talked to some people yesterday and I
mentioned that exact thing - 'what if it cost money to get the next release
of netnews?' and they replied 'if that was the only way we could get it we'd
buy it. (gregbo also made an interesting comment about how he was of the
impression that the news 2.11 implementation "team" talked for a while
about making it incompatible, thereby forcing sites to update. If someone
really wanted to make money in the netnews community one could come up with
an incompatible system, give free copies to 'backbone sites' (plus a 1%
kickback?) and then CHARGE THE HELL OUT OF LEAF SITES. *THAT* is the
kind of thing that we might just see on this Brave New Net if we aren't
careful).
>>Just like registering a domain name or renting the key for a stargate decoder.
>>Also known as "how to make money off the once-free Usenet". Somehow
>>as phone calls get cheaper, the price of Usenet membership keeps rising.
That is true. I've always had some serious misgivings about the Stargate
project, not the least of which is that I can see some backbone sites
saying "well now there's stargate so we won't ship out articles any more."
(it *is* a logical extension). That would be A Bad Thing. I am firmly
unconvinced that Stargate is going to be worth the time and effort to
use. Not to mention the problems with reliability of transmission, and
so on...
The deal with paying for a domain registration is even more of a really
bad setup. As Greg was, I was shocked to hear that the USENIX Usenet group
was going to *charge* money for domain registration. So much for the
public orientation of the Usenet...
And quite frankly I don't really care if they are making money or not.
That is *NOT* the issue here. The issue is that hosts that want to
join usenet now are not merely stuck having to find a local feed for
mail and later news, but are now tied into an administration, and
have yearly registration fees and on and on. This is a very bad
trend.
Again, perhaps we should consider an alternative...
Greg Woods then says: "True, we don't have to be a backbone site, but
SOMEBODY DOES"
That I disagree with. We could do perfectly well by eliminating
the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have
a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout
of 50 or more. It is a matter of convenience and logistics that cause
us to have backbone sites.
In fact, I think the net would be *better* if we didn't have backbone
sites at all. It would certainly be more of an anarchy, which I would
view as a very positive move from the more-and-more legislated playground
for certain people that it has become... (my biggest disappointment is
that the usenet community just sits back and lets this all happen...)
(but it isn't suprising)
As far as using phone bill cost as a reason for anything, then my reply
is "then let's change the topology!". I don't think it is a good
justification for having more limited newsgroups, more moderation, or
whatever else is "in the works".
John comments;
> He [Rick Adams] certainly was willing to take the public domain 2.10.3 beta
> code and insert my changes and a few other peoples' and call it 2.11,
> copyright by him.
This is quite disturbing. Enough so that I am going to seriously propose
that we create a group to come up with a competing netnews software that is
100% public domain. More in a different posting.
A final note: once software is released in the public domain it CANNOT be
copyrighted by someone. It has already been distributed without the
copyright notice so it is de facto public. The same holds true for
anything that doesn't have the 'correct' copyright notice. Check it out
if you don't believe me.
----
As a general comment, I think that what John was saying in his posting
was reasonable and also a source of concern for the community. I think
he asked some reasonable questions and made some valid observations.
Greg Woods, on the other hand, came across as he, alas, always does: as
a loud obnoxious person. I found his reply very bad, not only full of
innacuracies, but also ignorant of certain realities of life. It was
also unforgivably rude to John.
-- Dave Taylor
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <7683@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Feb-87 21:35:53 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7683
Posted: Sat Feb 21 21:35:53 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 21:35:53 EST
References: <1808@hoptoad.uucp> <539@hao.UCAR.EDU>, <1311@hplabsc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 56
> The deal with paying for a domain registration is even more of a really
> bad setup. As Greg was, I was shocked to hear that the USENIX Usenet group
> was going to *charge* money for domain registration. So much for the
> public orientation of the Usenet...
Are *you* willing to do the registration paperwork and overhead for free?
If not, please shut up about this. Almost every successful user-founded
organization (e.g. Usenix) goes through the stage of discovering that the
whole thing has just gotten too big to be free any more, because there are
too many real-money costs and the volunteer labor is about to quit because
it's overworked and there is no end in sight. And there are always hotheads
who scream bloody murder because something that they've been getting for
free, and are convinced they have a *right* to, all of a sudden starts to
cost money. If it's not worth anything to you, don't pay. If it is worth
something to you, what's the problem with paying a nominal fee for it?
"Public orientation" doesn't mean "free lunch"; look at your tax return.
> ... We could do perfectly well by eliminating
> the whole concept of backbone sites. If every site were to have
> a fanout of three, say, we would never need sites that have a fanout
> of 50 or more...
[Sounds of bitter laughter.] You have a peculiar notion of how the backbone
functions. With the exception of a couple of oddballs like ihnp4, nobody
has fanouts of 50+; with B news, no reasonable machine could handle that.
Utzoo, for example, has a fanout of about 6. The reason why we are on the
backbone is not the fanout but the Long Distance bills we pay. There is
only so much that can be done by finding intermediate sites so the news
moves in short hops rather than long ones. (Especially since this will
often drive total bills up, since call cost is a non-linear function of
distance.) News is increasingly flowing by non-phone paths like X.25, but
that just changes the concentration points rather than eliminating them.
There will always be sites that are much better equipped for long-haul
communications than others.
> ... (my biggest disappointment is
> that the usenet community just sits back and lets this all happen...)
If you are willing to do something about it, start doing so. The Network
Police aren't going to come and seize your modems if you try to build an
alternative to the current backbone. (In fact, if you really pull it off,
most of the backbone admins will give up their current roles with shrieks
of delight.) Go ahead. You'll find it's easier said than done.
One of the biggest curses of being a backbone administrator is all those
wonderful people who have Nifty Ideas about how the network could run better,
but want somebody else -- with a strong hint it should be *me* -- to do
something about implementing them. For quite a while now, my answer has
been "I'm burned out on hacking the net; it already causes me ample grief;
if *you* want things fixed that badly, *you* fix them". If I wasn't so
familiar with the pattern, it would be a source of constant amusement to
see how few of the complainers are willing to put in the long, hard hours
needed to make their ideas fly.
--
Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!gatech!spaf
From: s...@gatech.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Copyright status of the netnews software
Message-ID: <12581@gatech.EDU>
Date: Sun, 22-Feb-87 21:13:04 EST
Article-I.D.: gatech.12581
Posted: Sun Feb 22 21:13:04 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Feb-87 18:37:12 EST
References: <1808@hoptoad.uucp> <539@hao.UCAR.EDU> <1311@hplabsc.UUCP> <7683@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: s...@gatech.UUCP (Gene Spafford)
Organization: Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech
Lines: 64
Let me echo Henry's comments:
1) If you don't like the current backbone structure, form your own.
If you can provide reliable service with the same (or less) propagation
delay than the current backbone structure, then I think you'd find a
number of backbone sites gladly turning it over.
For example, here at "gatech", we exchange a full newsfeed with 4 other
backbone sites, and partial feeds to 4 others; we feed 10 other sites
with a full news feed, and 6 more with partial feeds. Our phone bills
are higher than we'd like, but luckily we have some cheap methods we
can use to good advantage. We move between 6Mb and 15Mb of uucp
traffic DAILY for news and mail, much of it at 1200 baud.
I spend at least an hour a day maintaining the software and
connections, and dealing with mail. I don't get paid *anything* for
what I do -- my job is as a research scientist here at Tech, and in
fact, my boss would prefer that I spent less time and energy on the net
and more on my job. So do I. I shudder to think about the time spent
by other admins -- and I wonder if Rick Adams ever sleeps.
I used to enjoy the net, and I used to read a lot of the groups.
Nowadays, I don't have time to read anything other than the news.*
groups and one or two mod.* groups. The continuing antagonism and
invective heaped on those of us making hard choices to keep the network
alive is getting to me, and I try to keep a low profile these days. I
wonder what would happen if we (backbone sites) became read-only
sites. Disconnect seismo, ihnp4, decvax, hplabs, akgua, mcnc, gatech,
cuae2, linus, utzoo. That's just 10 sites. What do you think would
happen to the North American network? I bet it wouldn't kill Usenet,
but the results *would* be instructive. Maybe we ought to try it for a
month....
2) If you don't like the software, write your own. As Henry said,
if you come up with something with advantages and if it meets the
standards expected by the community, then maybe people will use it.
Be prepared for abuse, though, by people who think you should have
done it *their* way. Expect countless requests for bugfixes, patches,
changes, and enhancements. Expect requests to make it run on machines
and Unix versions you never knew existed, each with its own little
quirks. Expect people to look to you for software solutions to
human problems. Watch how some people will take your code and do
awful things to it that you absolutely do not want done, and either
balme you (if it fails) or take all the credit for themselves (if it
works). Then let's have this discussion again.
3) If you don't want to pay $150 or $200 to register a domain in the
UUCP structure, don't. If you want an official subdomain, you can
always pay $10000 for CSNet registration. Or pay the $100K costs to
join ARPA -- if they'll let you. Pay to get two machines hooked up to
the Internet, configure your mailer to forward domain mail, and handle
all the paper work and you're more than welcome to offer free second
and third level naming to anyone who wants it. But don't complain that
the people who are doing it now are expecting something to help defray
costs unless you provide a viable alternative.
The botton line is, it sure is easy to criticize if you aren't the one
doing the work and paying the costs.
--
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center (SERC), Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
CSNet: Spaf @ GATech ARPA: S...@gatech.EDU
uucp: ...!{akgua,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!spaf
|