Tech Insider					   Technology and Trends


			   USENET Archives

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!udel!
news.intercon.com!psinntp!dg-rtp!bounce-bounce
From: sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA (Peter MacDonald)
Subject: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Sender: use...@dg-rtp.dg.com (Usenet Administration)
Message-ID: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Approved: linux-annou...@tc.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT
Reply-To: sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA (Peter MacDonald)
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, CANADA
Followup-To: comp.os.linux
Keywords: SLS legal status GPL copyright
Lines: 26

It seems there are some resellers of SLS that are misrepresenting
(intentionally or otherwise) their status.  To wit they are claiming
to be one of Softlandings outlets.  While it is true that there are
some valid resellers, Linux Laboratories or some outfit in Michigan
is not one of them.  Softlanding does not offer support for their
clients, and frankly, is getting a little peaved at explaining
this to bewildered customers with problems.

The Linux kernel is copyrighted Linus Torvalds.  SLS is copyrighted 
Softlanding Software.  I thought this was made clear that in the 
attendant files.  While redistribution is an important aspect of
SLS, there is no room deception.

So, starting with the next release, the SLS copyright will be 
enhanced to be a superset of GNU.   In addition, both the
Linux and SLS copyrights will be required in solicitations
or advertisments.  Finally, the terms of support must be
made clear, in writing to the recipients.  This means also
explaining that Softlanding does not support them, unless
purchased from a valid Softlanding reseller.


Peter

--
Send submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: linux-annou...@tc.cornell.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uunet!
mcsun!dxcern!dxcern!bcr
From: b...@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
In-Reply-To: sanjuan!pmacdona@sol.UVic.CA's message of Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT
Message-ID: <BCR.93Jun24122631@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
Followup-To: comp.os.linux
Sender: n...@dxcern.cern.ch (USENET News System)
Organization: CERN, European Research Center for High Energy Physics
References: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1993 11:26:31 GMT
Lines: 43

Followup-To: comp.os.linux

>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT, sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA (Peter MacDonald) 
said:
Peter> It seems there are some resellers of SLS that are misrepresenting
Peter> (intentionally or otherwise) their status.  To wit they are claiming
Peter> to be one of Softlandings outlets.  While it is true that there are
Peter> some valid resellers, Linux Laboratories or some outfit in Michigan
Peter> is not one of them.  Softlanding does not offer support for their
Peter> clients, and frankly, is getting a little peaved at explaining
Peter> this to bewildered customers with problems.

I'll confess, I'm somewhat guilty here, in that I never knew there
was such a thing as a "official" SLS outlet.  Perhaps when rewording
things you should make this clearer.  To be honest, I expect that 
from a reseller that SLS should give the same support as from anonymous
FTP, no more, no less.  This means you should probably still encourage
bug reports, but not promise to spend your valueable time trying to 
solve someone else's problem.  You stated quite clearly in your 
documentation, the the distributor is responcable to provide support.

>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT, sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA (Peter MacDonald) 
said:
Peter> So, starting with the next release, the SLS copyright will be 
Peter> enhanced to be a superset of GNU.   In addition, both the
Peter> Linux and SLS copyrights will be required in solicitations
Peter> or advertisments.  Finally, the terms of support must be
Peter> made clear, in writing to the recipients.  This means also
Peter> explaining that Softlanding does not support them, unless
Peter> purchased from a valid Softlanding reseller.

Eeeeggggaaaaddddsss.  This is going to tremendously increase the
size of comp.os.linux.announce postings...  A much simpler idea
would be to start enforcing the internet rule against advertising.
Obcourse, this would mean removing your own listing from the 
FAQ, but no idea is perfect...

                             Bill
--
"Yeti!  Saw them in the London Underground twenty years ago.  Ghosts!
A headless woman used to walk through my bedroom at midnight.  Mermaids?
Grandpa was rescued from the Marie Celeste by one.  Vampires?  I always
wondered where my dad went to at night.  Telepathy?  Right now you're
thinking that I'm talking crap.  So what can you tell me that I won't
believe in?" - Andrew Hunt, "CAT'S CRADLE: WITCH MARK"

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu (Tommy Marcus McGuire)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Date: 25 Jun 1993 14:01:15 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <m2mirrINNgb4@cash.cs.utexas.edu>
References: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com> <BCR.93Jun24122631@hfl3sn02.cern.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cash.cs.utexas.edu

I must have missed the previous parts of this, or they haven't gotten
here yet.

In article <BCR.93Jun24122...@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> b...@cernapo.cern.ch (Bill Riemers) 
writes:
>Followup-To: comp.os.linux
>
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT, sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA (Peter MacDonald) 
said:
>Peter> It seems there are some resellers of SLS that are misrepresenting
>Peter> (intentionally or otherwise) their status.  To wit they are claiming
>Peter> to be one of Softlandings outlets.  While it is true that there are
>Peter> some valid resellers, Linux Laboratories or some outfit in Michigan
>Peter> is not one of them.  Softlanding does not offer support for their
>Peter> clients, and frankly, is getting a little peaved at explaining
>Peter> this to bewildered customers with problems.
>
>I'll confess, I'm somewhat guilty here, in that I never knew there
>was such a thing as a "official" SLS outlet.  Perhaps when rewording
>things you should make this clearer.  To be honest, I expect that 
>from a reseller that SLS should give the same support as from anonymous
>FTP, no more, no less.  This means you should probably still encourage
>bug reports, but not promise to spend your valueable time trying to 
>solve someone else's problem.  You stated quite clearly in your 
>documentation, the the distributor is responcable to provide support.

So, does Softlandings sell radishes with its cabbage?

Wouldn't it be nice if the SLS folks were selling support for software
rather than vegetables?  Then, they'd be rolling around in unholy glee
about the free advertising provided by "invalid resellers."

>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT, sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA (Peter MacDonald) 
said:
>Peter> So, starting with the next release, the SLS copyright will be 
>Peter> enhanced to be a superset of GNU.   In addition, both the
>Peter> Linux and SLS copyrights will be required in solicitations
>Peter> or advertisments.  Finally, the terms of support must be
>Peter> made clear, in writing to the recipients.  This means also
>Peter> explaining that Softlanding does not support them, unless
>Peter> purchased from a valid Softlanding reseller.

How precisely are you planning on "enhancing" the GPL?  By preventing 
anyone from making a second generation (or later) copy of SLS?  
This is treading on a fairly fine line.

I don't want to tell anyone how to drive their customers away,
but wouldn't it be a better idea to charge the people who don't
get the SLS from a "valid" reseller for support?  Then, there would 
not be any need to "enhance" the GPL.

[...]
>                             Bill
[...]



-----
Tommy McGuire
mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu
mcgu...@austin.ibm.com

"...I will append an appropriate disclaimer to outgoing public information,
identifying it as personal and as independent of IBM...."

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!
news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jvs
From: j...@netcom.com (Jonathan Stockley)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Message-ID: <jvsC977Cs.Gn7@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com> 
<BCR.93Jun24122631@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> <m2mirrINNgb4@cash.cs.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1993 22:19:39 GMT
Lines: 30

In article <m2mirrINN...@cash.cs.utexas.edu> mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu 
(Tommy Marcus McGuire) writes:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT, sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA 
>>>>>>>(Peter MacDonald) said:
>>Peter> So, starting with the next release, the SLS copyright will be 
>>Peter> enhanced to be a superset of GNU.   In addition, both the
>>Peter> Linux and SLS copyrights will be required in solicitations
>>Peter> or advertisments.  Finally, the terms of support must be
>>Peter> made clear, in writing to the recipients.  This means also
>>Peter> explaining that Softlanding does not support them, unless
>>Peter> purchased from a valid Softlanding reseller.
>
>How precisely are you planning on "enhancing" the GPL?  By preventing 
>anyone from making a second generation (or later) copy of SLS?  
>This is treading on a fairly fine line.

Pay closer attention! Peter didn't say the GPL would be enhanced. He
said the SLS copyright will be enhanced to be a superset of GNU.
The implication here is that the SLS copyright will be the GPL as a
minimum.

>Tommy McGuire
>mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu
>mcgu...@austin.ibm.com
>

Jo Stockley.
j...@netcom.com
-- 
Jo Stockley
j...@netcom.com

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news
From: mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu (Tommy Marcus McGuire)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Date: 29 Jun 1993 13:57:28 -0500
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <m3144oINN3v4@cash.cs.utexas.edu>
References: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com> 
<BCR.93Jun24122631@hfl3sn02.cern.ch> <m2mirrINNgb4@cash.cs.utexas.edu> 
<jvsC977Cs.Gn7@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cash.cs.utexas.edu

In article <jvsC977Cs....@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jonathan Stockley) writes:
>In article <m2mirrINN...@cash.cs.utexas.edu> mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu 
>(Tommy Marcus McGuire) writes:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 93 01:43:36 GMT, sanjuan!pmacd...@sol.UVic.CA 
>>>>>>>>(Peter MacDonald) said:
>>>Peter> So, starting with the next release, the SLS copyright will be 
>>>Peter> enhanced to be a superset of GNU.   In addition, both the
>>>Peter> Linux and SLS copyrights will be required in solicitations
>>>Peter> or advertisments.  Finally, the terms of support must be
>>>Peter> made clear, in writing to the recipients.  This means also
>>>Peter> explaining that Softlanding does not support them, unless
>>>Peter> purchased from a valid Softlanding reseller.
>>
>>How precisely are you planning on "enhancing" the GPL?  By preventing 
>>anyone from making a second generation (or later) copy of SLS?  
>>This is treading on a fairly fine line.
>
>Pay closer attention! Peter didn't say the GPL would be enhanced. He
>said the SLS copyright will be enhanced to be a superset of GNU.
>The implication here is that the SLS copyright will be the GPL as a
>minimum.

Read the General Public License!  From section 6.:  "Each time you 
redistribute the Program (or any work based on the program), the
recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor
to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
and conditions [i.e. the GPL].  You may not impose any further 
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

A copyright merely tells everyone what they cannot do to a work,
namely anything other than look at it themselves.  The license 
agreement tells them what they can do.  In the case of the GPL,
this means copying, distruibuting, and modifying the work under certain
specific restrictions.  By "SLS copyright will be enhanced to be a 
superset of GNU," I assumed that either additional or less restrictions
were to be placed on the work in question by the new, improved SLS
license agreement (technically, I assumed additional restrictions, but
it really doesn't matter either way).  Now, this new SLS license 
agreement will only apply to parts of SLS which are independent of and
separate  from the GPL'ed works contained by the SLS such as GCC and the
linux kernel or the GPL would need to be changed to remove that
section I quoted above.

Why would you want to do this, anyway?


>>Tommy McGuire
[...]
>Jo Stockley.
[...]




-----
Tommy McGuire
mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu
mcgu...@austin.ibm.com

"...I will append an appropriate disclaimer to outgoing public information,
identifying it as personal and as independent of IBM...."

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!mcsun!
news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!klaava!not-for-mail
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Date: 29 Jun 1993 22:34:03 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <20q5fb$c9r@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
References: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com> 
<m2mirrINNgb4@cash.cs.utexas.edu> <jvsC977Cs.Gn7@netcom.com> 
<m3144oINN3v4@cash.cs.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: klaava.helsinki.fi

In article <m3144oINN...@cash.cs.utexas.edu> mcgu...@cs.utexas.edu 
(Tommy Marcus McGuire) writes:
>
>Read the General Public License!  From section 6.:  "Each time you 
>redistribute the Program (or any work based on the program), the
>recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor
>to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms
>and conditions [i.e. the GPL].  You may not impose any further 
>restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

I think that what Peter is looking into is a "distribution" copyright:
the programs included in the SLS distribution will naturally have the
GPL apply to them *singly*, but the SLS distribution as a *package*
would be copyrighted by SLS to some degree, so that some random person
couldn't just take the SLS setup and sell it as-is.  I don't know how
well this works under copyright law, but I think it's possible (and it
wouldn't be against the GPL).  There are probably net.lawers out there
that know better about compilation copyrights or whatever their legal
status is (similar to anthologies when it comes to books - the stories
in a anthology are under different copyrights, but the "package" also
has a copyright to protect it). 

As to whether it's a good idea or not is another matter: I personally
think Peter (and others like Yggdrasil) have good reason to do something
like this.  The GPL was meant to make the sources free, but one aspect
of the GPL is also that people like Peter and Adam should be able to
make money off them by making value-added packages with support and
other services.  Putting the SLS under some kind of copyright would not
hinder others from using the programs therein, it would just mean that
Peter could try to have some kind of "quality-assurance" of the
different packages that go under the name SLS - something that should be
good for everybody. 

		Linus

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!
news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!concert!decwrl!world!jimr
From: j...@world.std.com (James A Robinson)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Message-ID: <C9EJxA.CtD@world.std.com>
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
References: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com> 
<m2mirrINNgb4@cash.cs.utexas.edu> <jvsC977Cs.Gn7@netcom.com> 
<m3144oINN3v4@cash.cs.utexas.edu> <20q5fb$c9r@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1993 21:34:21 GMT
Lines: 25

torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds) writes:


>As to whether it's a good idea or not is another matter: I personally
>think Peter (and others like Yggdrasil) have good reason to do something
>like this.  The GPL was meant to make the sources free, but one aspect
>of the GPL is also that people like Peter and Adam should be able to
>make money off them by making value-added packages with support and
>other services.  Putting the SLS under some kind of copyright would not
>hinder others from using the programs therein, it would just mean that
>Peter could try to have some kind of "quality-assurance" of the
>different packages that go under the name SLS - something that should be
>good for everybody. 


Personaly I think that SLS should ONLY make it clear that unless you get the
package direct from SLS, they will not support you without a fee.  That
seems fair, and there is no need to do anything with the copyright or
whatever, after all, SLS only packages the software, I know I had to
do a lot of work myself to get the package really working.  I should be
able to give away as many copys as I want as long as it is made
clear that SLS is in no way responsible for the COPIES made.

Jim
j...@world.std.com

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uunet!
news!sun1.clark.net!sun1.clark.net!postmaster
From: step...@sun1.clark.net (Stephen Balbach)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Date: 30 Jun 1993 00:41:55 -0400
Organization: Clark Internet Services, Inc., Ellicott City, MD USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <20r5ij$p2e@sun1.clark.net>
References: <1993Jun24.014336.11115@dg-rtp.dg.com> 
<m3144oINN3v4@cash.cs.utexas.edu> <20q5fb$c9r@klaava.Helsinki.FI> 
<C9EJxA.CtD@world.std.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sun1.clark.net

>torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds) writes:
>
>>As to whether it's a good idea or not is another matter: I personally
>>think Peter (and others like Yggdrasil) have good reason to do something
>>like this.  The GPL was meant to make the sources free, but one aspect
>
>Personaly I think that SLS should ONLY make it clear that unless you get the
>package direct from SLS, they will not support you without a fee.  That
>seems fair, and there is no need to do anything with the copyright or
>whatever, after all, SLS only packages the software, I know I had to
>do a lot of work myself to get the package really working.  I should be
>able to give away as many copys as I want as long as it is made
>clear that SLS is in no way responsible for the COPIES made.

I agree with you Jim that SLS should make it clear that it only supports
copies which have been bought from SLS.

However, to encourage that SLS copyright the package so that only SLS can
sell it will fragment the market.  Others, unable to pay the prices set by SLS
will make thier own packages in order to compete at a lower price (FYI 31
5.25" disks can be bought for $10.85 + $5 shipping/packaging + $6/hr labor
= ~$23, while SLS is selling it for ~$150 - quite a markup). With other
packages available people will become confused on what Linux is.  It was
confusing enough w/ HJL's boot-disk and a number of other systems floating
around.

If Peter is smart he will keep his product available for re-sell by
others, without support of course, insuring his dominace as THE
authoritative package - It is a well put together package, why have
another one (unless he forces others into it).

Stephen Balbach

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!
swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!caen!zip.eecs.umich.edu!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!
news.UVic.CA!sanjuan!pmacdona
From: pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Message-ID: <1993Jun30.050854.24710@sol.UVic.CA>
Sender: n...@sol.UVic.CA
Nntp-Posting-Host: sanjuan.uvic.ca
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. CANADA
References: <20q5fb$c9r@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <C9EJxA.CtD@world.std.com> 
<20r5ij$p2e@sun1.clark.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 93 05:08:54 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <20r5ij$...@sun1.clark.net> step...@sun1.clark.net (Stephen Balbach) 
writes:
>>torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds) writes:
...
>>Personaly I think that SLS should ONLY make it clear that unless you get the
>>package direct from SLS, they will not support you without a fee.  That
...
>I agree with you Jim that SLS should make it clear that it only supports
>copies which have been bought from SLS.
>
>However, to encourage that SLS copyright the package so that only SLS can
>sell it will fragment the market.  Others, unable to pay the prices set by SLS

No such thing will happen.  The problem at hand is that Softlanding was starting
to get flooded with calls for support, from people purchasing SLS from other
sources.   Fielding these calls is expensive (timewise) and slightly awkward
as it is explained they did not buy it from OOOO (One Of Our Outlets) so the 
onus will be placed on the Vendor to make clear the terms of support.    In fact,
I would prefer that the vendor does support what they sell, to the best of
their ability.    But coercing this is impractical/undesirable.   However,
leaving the buyer to "assume what they will" about support is unacceptable.

It is that simple.

Peter

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!uunet!
nwnexus!ole!ssc!fyl
From: f...@ssc.com (Phil Hughes)
Subject: Re: IMPORTANT: SLS status
Organization: SSC, Inc.,  Seattle, WA
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1993 17:30:43 GMT
Message-ID: <1993Jul01.173043.10777@ssc.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <20q5fb$c9r@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Lines: 25

Linus Torvalds (torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI) wrote:

: I think that what Peter is looking into is a "distribution" copyright:
: the programs included in the SLS distribution will naturally have the
: GPL apply to them *singly*, but the SLS distribution as a *package*
...

: other services.  Putting the SLS under some kind of copyright would not
: hinder others from using the programs therein, it would just mean that
: Peter could try to have some kind of "quality-assurance" of the
: different packages that go under the name SLS - something that should be
: good for everybody. 

Rather than copyright, trademark might solve this problem.  Peter could
"enforce" (where enforce to me means make it clear this is his intention
and expose offenders) his trademark on SoftLanding Software.  Thus,
someone could only sell an SLS package if it was infact an SLS package,
not a copy of an SLS package.  This would not prevent them from selling
the programs (or giving them away for that matter), it would just mean
they couldn't claim it was an SLS package.
-- 
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155  (206)FOR-UNIX
>>> Publishers of pocket references for UNIX, C, VI, Emacs, Ksh, MS-DOS, ... <<<
     ...!ssc!fyl or f...@ssc.com            (206)527-3385

			   USENET Archives


The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or 
research.


Electronic mail:			      WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com		         http://tech-insider.org/