A Short History of Arching on Micros
Paul Homchick
In the beginning, there was no need for an archive-file; disks were
simply too small to hold more that 90K or so, and you kept what you
wanted on a single diskette... or a whole bunch of diskettes.
Some time went by and it was a CP/M world, and diskettes were bigger.
In 1981 Richard Greenlaw released SQ and USQ, based on Huffman encoding
and written in BDS C. This was the first popular compression technique.
Greenlaw gave away the binaries and source code.
In 1982 Mike Rubenstein released a series of programs written in DRI
PL/1 that collected groups of files into a pair of files-- one of them
containing a directory structure, and the other the file collection.
Mike gave away the binaries.
The two-file format was a bit unwieldy, and later in 1982 Gary
Novosielski released "LU", or Library Utility (written in BDS C), which
provided a single-file method of collecting a number of files together.
LBR (Library) files became extremely popular. Gary was featured in an
Infoworld article as a beneficial Public Domain luminary. He gave LU
away.
By 1983 it was getting hard to ignore the IBM PC as programs which
weren't written in BASIC started appearing. SQ/USQ was ported by Chuck
Forsberg from unix C-source code. LU was ported to the PC by Tom
Jennings, from a unix implementation named "lar" (for Library ARchive).
Jennings and Forsberg gave these programs away.
MSDOS allowed time and date stamping for directory entries, and before
long, renegade, non-compatible versions of LU and SQ appeared which
supported this feature. Several people interested in promoting
continuing standards in the Public Domain/BBS world (Novosielski, Vern
Buerg, Cliff Sharp, and Paul Homchick) got together and added
downward-compatible time and date stamping to both SQ and LU. Programs
supporting this compatibility included NSQ/NUSQ, LU86, LUE, LUU, and
LUD. The authors of these programs gave them away.
In order to combine the benefits of LBR organization and file
compression, people began putting SQueezed files inside of libraries, or
SQueezing LBR files, turning them into LQR files. It thus became
logical to add an automatic sq/usq module to a LU utility. Vern Buerg
added this feature to his LUU and LUE utilities.
The next advance came in 1985 when Thom Henderson of System Enhancements
Associates (SEA), released his ARC.EXE program. ARC introduced LZW
compression (which was in common use in the unix world) to micros. LZW
compression gave users much better compaction than the Huffman encoding
used in SQueeze programs. ARC files began to displace SQ and LBR files
on Bulletin Board systems throughout the land. ARC was distributed as a
shareware program, which meant that if you used it, you were supposed to
pay for it. SEA also claimed proprietary rights to the program and the
format. They weren't giving anything away.
ARC-clones eventually appeared. These were usually coded in assembly
language and were faster than the standard SEA-ARC program. These
clones included: ARCE/ARCA by Vern Buerg (distributed with the
permission of System Enhancement Associates), and PKARC/PKXARC from Phil
Katz (PKware, which did not have such permission). Buerg's programs
were free, with a suggestion that a donation be sent to SEA. PKware was
distributed as shareware, just like SEA's ARC.
In 1986 Rahul Dhesi released the zoo archiver. It added 13-bit LZW for
tighter compression, full pathnames, and a number of other improved
features. Highly portable source code was released, and zoo was ported
to Unix, VMS, MS-DOS, and Amiga. Dhesi gave away the source code and
the binaries. At first, zoo was largely ignored because it was not "ARC
compatible." Later events led to this being seen as an advantage.
Phil Katz continued to produced new versions of PKARC, finally, in the
latter part of 1987, introducing "SQUASHING" which was similar to zoo's
13-bit LZW compression. Although PKARC was no longer "ARC-compatible"
it retained the .ARC extension. This caused confusion for novice users
and a lot of grief for BBS operators. This policy was regarding by many
as "standard busting," and likely was a factor in the litigation that
followed in the summer of 1988.
By the middle of 1988, Henderson had been marketing ARC commercially for
several years. Katz started advertising in the same magazines as SEA,
and began to have significant success. From the outside, it appeared
that this market was quite financially rewarding. After some
negotiations which failed, SEA sued PKware claiming unfair competition
and trademark infringement. This led to BBS archiving getting into the
trade press again; Henderson and Katz were featured in an Infoworld
article as litigants squabbling over proprietary archiving methods.
The lawsuit was settled out of court with PKware agreeing to pay some
damages to SEA, and to stop marketing ARC-compatible products after
January 1, 1989. After this success, SEA's lawyers apparently began
contacting authors of other ARC-compatible programs in an effort to
protect SEA's trademark.
Phil Katz announced that he would develop a 'new', and 'improved'
archiver which would have a 'public' file format, but which would, of
course, still be a commercial program. A few BBS operators made some
statements of support for this new format. Many observers felt that
these statements were premature and essentially political in nature, as
at the time the statements were made, there was no format or programs to
support.
Some BBS operators said that ARC had served well, was an established
standard, and they would continue to support it. Other BBS operators,
tired of lawyers and the entire shareware and commercial jungle, began
to endorse Zoo, as the only truly public format and program.
This produced a state of confusion where people were unsure of what
course future archiving efforts should take.
Some people give programs away. Other people make a business out of
their programs, and sell and control them. Those who are unable to
learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
--
Paul Homchick UUCP: {allegra | rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul
Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc.; One Radnor Station, Suite 300; Radnor, PA 19087
Darryl Okahata
> A Short History of Compression and Archive-files on Microcomputers
[ ... ]
> Some BBS operators said that ARC had served well, was an established
> standard, and they would continue to support it. Other BBS operators,
> tired of lawyers and the entire shareware and commercial jungle, began
> to endorse Zoo, as the only truly public format and program.
Just to clarify things, ZOO IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. It comes with
some crippling (in my opinion) licensing restrictions, which almost
insures that it will not become widely used. Don't get me wrong -- I
like zoo and will probably use it for my own personal purposes, but I
really think that the licensing agreement is a bit silly.
[ ... ]
> Paul Homchick UUCP: {allegra | rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul
> Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc.; One Radnor Station, Suite 300; Radnor, PA 19087
-- Darryl Okahata
{hplabs!hpccc!, hpfcla!} hpnmd!darrylo
CompuServe: 75206,3074
Disclaimer: the above is the author's personal opinion and is not the
opinion or policy of his employer or of the little green men that
have been following him all day.
Don Malpass
>A Short History of Compression and Archive-files on Microcomputers
>
>--
How unusual to read something about this dead horse that isn't pure
BS. If you passed this one up, ask for it to be mailed to you.
Because of the subject, which most of us are sick of, I almost didn't
read it. No axe grinding - it simply shows that we are ALL the losers
in this fray, even though we collectively will never agree on who the
villains are.
--
Don Malpass [mal...@LL-vlsi.arpa], [mal...@spenser.ll.mit.edu]
My opinions are seldom shared by MIT Lincoln Lab, my actual
employer RCA (known recently as GE), or my wife.
Rahul Dhesi
> Just to clarify things, ZOO IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. It comes with
>some crippling (in my opinion) licensing restrictions, which almost
>insures that it will not become widely used.
I mailed this response and am posting it here too:
I realize that a number of organizations may distribute zoo 2.x only if
they modify their own policies slightly. For example, zoo files could
be placed on a separate disk or in a separate downloading area which is
not covered by any compilation copyright.
I have seen a lot of flaming, but few specific arguments. I want
genuine, specific feedback about why conforming to my restrictions
would be a hardship to any organization, and to which organizations in
particular. I'm open to well-reasoned arguments.
--
Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
greg yachuk
>> tired of lawyers and the entire shareware and commercial jungle, began
>> to endorse Zoo, as the only truly public format and program.
> Just to clarify things, ZOO IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Well, almost right. This is probably for Rahul to defend, but he posted
a note several weeks ago (does time really go that fast?) that zoo FORMAT
is in the public domain. ZOO.EXE is NOT in the public domain. Here's
where I get unsure of my data: I believe that I read a posting claiming
that looz (the extract only portion of zoo) is either in the public domain,
or is freely-distributable.
I also think that I saw a list some time ago in comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
which listed a whole slew of zoo-related programs and which ones were
public domain and which were copyrighted. This list would be useful.
I'll look for it. Anyone who has it (if it actually existed and I'm
not just reliving a possible drug-infested past), please send it to me.
>> Paul Homchick UUCP: {allegra | rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul
> -- Darryl Okahata
> {hplabs!hpccc!, hpfcla!} hpnmd!darrylo
> CompuServe: 75206,3074
-greg
Greg Yachuk Informix Software Inc., Menlo Park, CA (415) 322-4100
{uunet,pyramid}!infmx!greggy why yes, I DID choose that login myself
RAMontante
is public domain. The "looz" MSDOS-executable is public domain; I don't
believe he has released the source code.
He has released source code for "booz" into public domain. "Booz" is a
`basic' extractor of zoo files, enough to get stuff out of zoo archives.
I know it compiles and works under TurboC and under Ultrix v2.?; I
haven't personally tried it anywhere else.
Only "zoo" the full-blown archive-manipulating program is subject to
restrictions, which amount to limits on the charges for redistribution.
How about it, programming hotshots? Write a program of your own that
uses the ZOO format! It's your chance to be creative!
[disclaimer: Rahul Dhesi is not bound by any mistakes I may have made
in the above.]
--
-- bob,mon (bob...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu)
-- "Aristotle was not Belgian..." - Wanda
Paul Homchick
After I wrote:
&> Other BBS operators, tired of lawyers and the entire shareware and
&> commercial jungle, began to endorse Zoo, as the only truly public
&> format and program.
Darryl Okahata (hpnmd!darrylo) wrote:
& Just to clarify things, ZOO IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. It comes with
& some crippling (in my opinion) licensing restrictions, which almost
& insures that it will not become widely used.
Just to "re-clarify" things a bit, when I said that Zoo was "the only
truly public format and program", I was contrasting zoo with SEA's ARC,
and PKware's products and products-to-be; I was not making a statement
of zoo's legal status. When compared to anything from SEA or PKware,
both the zoo format and the zoo program are public. Essentially, you
can do ANYTHING you wish with zoo, except that 1) you may not limit it's
distribution, and 2) you can't break it and continue to call it zoo.
Many incendiary statements about the zoo copyright policy have been
posted on the net, but how many have seen the acutal thing itself?
Here is the zoo copyright statement from the 2.01 source package.
Draw your own conclusions:
===============================================================
COPYRIGHT
The following rules apply only to the zoo archiver itself.
Currently, all extract-only programs, and all supporting utili-
ties, are fully in the public domain and are expected to remain so
for the forseeable future.
Copyright Statement for Version 1.71
The distribution restrictions placed on zoo versions 1.71 and ear-
lier are now relaxed. Version 1.71 and earlier source and the
AmigaDOS and MS-DOS binary files may be distributed for any pur-
pose, whether commercial or noncommercial, by anybody, provided
(a) the files are distributed unmodified and (b) the recipient is
notified in advance of being provided the software that "version
1.71 is an outdated version and version 2.00 and higher versions
are now available from other sources". However, creation and dis-
tribution of any derivative work is governed by the copyright
statement for versions 2.00 and 2.01.
Copyright Statement for Versions 2.00 and 2.01
The following conditions apply to the C source code, the MS-DOS
support package, and to the MS-DOS executable code. Distribution
conditions for J. Brian Waters's AmigaDOS implementation may
differ and will be stated in the copyright statement accompanying
it.
"This program" refers to versions 2.00 and 2.01 and separately to
each subsequent version of the Zoo archiver and to all derivative
works thereof. "Distribution right" means any copyright, compila-
tion copyright, license, or other right to control distribution or
copying. "Compiled code" means software that can be executed by a
computer system.
This program is copyrighted but its distribution for noncommercial
purposes is permitted, with the following restrictions.
- You are prohibited from distributing this program as part of
any package over which you claim a distribution right. This
restriction does not apply if any distribution right is
claimed only over individual items that you own or for which
the distribution right has been explicitly assigned to you,
and not over the package as a collection.
- You are prohibited from making this program available for
downloading via telecommunications if you charge a total of
more than $8.00 per hour at 1200 bps during evening and night
hours.
- You are prohibited from distributing this program as compiled
code unless you also distribute the source code from which
the compiled code was obtained. This restriction does not
apply if the compiled code was created by me.
- You are prohibited from creating, from this program, any
derivative work over which you claim a distribution right.
- You are prohibited from creating from this program, whether
deliberately or through negligence, any derivative work that
violates the compatibility goals stated in the user manual
for this program.
- You may use this program, and any derivative works that you
create, internally within your own organization free of
charge. You may distribute such derivative works outside
your organization provided you adhere to all other conditions
of this copyright policy.
The above restrictions may be relaxed by special agreement; please
contact me for details.
-- Rahul Dhesi 1988/08/25
UUCP: iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi or
pur-ee!bsu-cs!dhesi
GEnie: DHESI
Plink: OLS806
Phone: +1 317 285 8641 daytime EST
US mail: 720 W. Centennial Ave #15,
Muncie, Indiana 47303
===============================================================
Where does this say, "please send money"? Or, how about, "source code is
available for $100,000." Does anyone see "don't bother asking for
information about file layouts?" Or, "please inquire about our porting
schedule to the Atari"? It looks to me like: [send no money], [here is
the source code, have fun], [file layouts and compression methods are
spelled out in the code], and [gee, if you want to port it to the Atari,
please go ahead, I tried to make the source as portable as possible].
These provisions allow everyone, everywhere, to make and extract zoo
files without making a monitary contribution or without fear of incompatible
formats appearing. I suppose reasonable people could quibble about some
of these provisions, but compared to the alternatives, the choice is clear.
--
Pete Holsberg
... downloading via telecommunications if you charge a total of
... more than $8.00 per hour at 1200 bps during evening and night
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
... hours.
...These provisions allow everyone, everywhere, to make and extract zoo
...files without making a monitary contribution or without fear of incompatible
...formats appearing. I suppose reasonable people could quibble about some
...of these provisions, but compared to the alternatives, the choice is clear.
...--
...Paul Homchick UUCP: {allegra | rutgers | uunet} !cbmvax!cgh!paul
...Chimitt Gilman Homchick, Inc.; One Radnor Station, Suite 300; Radnor, PA 19087
The ^^^^ part (above) seems to be arbitrarily selected to prevent
distribution by CompuServe and perhaps others, in favor of GEnie. While
that is Rahul's right, it does seem rather mean,
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Technology Division ...!att!jonlab!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
John Hardin
>
>These provisions allow everyone, everywhere, to make and extract zoo
>
>----------
I think a liitle understanding is called for on both sides of this issue.
This is not intended to be "incediary" and I hope it is not considered a mere
"quibble". I can understand how those whose contact with the outside world
is exclusively via this network consider ZOO as a godsend, saving us all from
further involvement in the ARC wars. For the many of us who also use
CompuServe (which does not meet the $8.00/hr @ 1200 baud restriction), however,
it becomes just another utility we will be forced to keep around for the
ZOO-format postings we find here. The choice for us is (1) zoo and arc
or (2) just arc. Many of us consider a single archiving format preferable
to multiple formats. The restrictions placed on ZOO prevent it from making
a bid to be that one format. Too bad. It looked promising at first.
John Hardin hardin%hpi...@hplabs.hp.com
----------
Tom Betz
John, Rahul has stated >repeatedly< that the only restriction he requires is
that the >latest version< of ZOO not be posted on C$erve. Therefore, as the
latest version of ZOO I've seen is 2.02, there is no reason why 2.01 (which is
very little different) could not be made available on C$erve.
His restriction is really no restriction.
You're making a big fuss over nothing.
Although, Rahul, to avoid this kind of confusion, I would recommend you
drop the restriction as well.
Because, even as you have described it, you are also making a bit of a fuss
over what is really nothing, and it just confuses people like John.
|----------
--
MY CURRENT FAVORITE ADVERTISING LINES: |Tom Betz
"Look what they done to old Duke! |ZCNY, Yonkers, NY 10701-2509
Next year I'm plantin' corn." |UUCP: tb...@dasys1.UUCP or
"It's not >that< crazy! Rosemary..." | ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tbetz
John P. Nelson
>that the >latest version< of ZOO not be posted on C$erve.
>
>drop the restriction as well.
Please, Rahul, remove the restriction!
I find the ZOO restriction very confusing, because the restrictions in
earlier versions (which are imbedded in the documentation and executable)
have been superceded in the documentation for later versions! This is
silly: I cannot know if I can freely distribute the version I HAVE until
I first check to see if there is a newer version first!
And, in fact, if I AM bound to redistribute only non-latest versions
of zoo, then I am forced to distribute a version which has an obsolete
copyright notice in it! Now, not only am I confused, but everyone who
received a copy of ZOO through me is also confused, because I am not
allowed to distribute the latest version which contains the up-to-date
copyright!
Rahul, at LEAST re-release zoo version xxx which is freely distributable
with the CORRECT copyright notice (i.e. that it is freely distributable)
so that I can distribute it without confusion! Even better: remove this
SILLY restriction - what is your gripe against Compu$erve, anyhow?
--
john nelson
UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn
smail: j...@teddy.genrad.com
Rahul Dhesi
>...what is your gripe against Compu$erve, anyhow?
I don't have a black list of people forbidden from distributing zoo, if
that's what you were implying. All that CompuServe has to do is put
zoo in an area on which it does not claim a compilation copyright, and
charge $8/hour or less for 1200 bps downloads from that area. If you
would like to see zoo 2.x distributed on CompuServe, talk to an
representative of the company and explain to him how to do it.
It's not a question of gripes. It's a question of keeping free
software free, or as near free as will let people distribute it without
losing money.
Brandon S. Allbery
+---------------
| In article <340...@hpsrli.HP.COM> dar...@hpsrli.HP.COM (Darryl Okahata) writes:
| > Just to clarify things, ZOO IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN. It comes with
| >some crippling (in my opinion) licensing restrictions, which almost
| >insures that it will not become widely used.
|
| they modify their own policies slightly. For example, zoo files could
| be placed on a separate disk or in a separate downloading area which is
| not covered by any compilation copyright.
Rahul, surely you understand that nobody is going to settle for having to do
a little extra WORK without an argument...? The messages I've seen on here
castigating your license are only slightly less stupid and annoying than the
SEA/PKWARE nonsense.
(Then again, just about the only compressed archives I ever use are built
via "find . -print | afio -o - | compress -b12"....)
++Brandon
--
Brandon S Allbery uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery allbery%nco...@hal.cwru.edu
(LAST RESORT ONLY: all...@uunet.uu.net) DELPHI: ALLBERY
comp.sources.misc is moving off ncoast -- please do NOT send submissions direct
"So many articles, so little time...." -- The Line-Eater
Robert A. Pease
>
>It's not a question of gripes. It's a question of keeping free
>software free, or as near free as will let people distribute it without
>losing money.
>--
>Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
Rahul,
So far, I have just silently read the articles go by
saying, "Please remove the download price restriction!" I
understood what you were trying to get at, so I figured no
big deal.
Now someone has come up with the first argument that I
can agree with. If any copyright notice on a version of zoo
modifies the copyright notice on earlier versions, there
WILL be confusion.
I have seen, throughout my work history, the people who
make decisions for the company's product make some of the
stupidest choices I can imagine. While I can see that the
company's customers won't recieve it [the choice] well, the
people making these decisions can't seem to understand this.
Confusion, restrictive capabilities and poor
documentation seem to be the biggest repeated mistakes made
by companies who are supposed to be "SERVICING THEIR
CUSTOMERS".
As far as the downloading-price policy that you have
chosen, as I said, I understand what you are trying to get
at. I also see you resisting the people who are trying to
get you to change this policy. My suggestion to you is,
"Let them charge what the market will bear."
Concider what this means before reacting to the
statement. If Compuserve (for lack of a better example)
charges $100/hr to download the latest and greatest zoo, I
can choose to pay the price or not. If I know that "FooBar
BBS" only charges me $10/hr to download zoo, then I,
obviously, would choose that source instead. But the
important consideration is that I get to choose.
If I need zoo and can't (or don't know how to) get it
anywhere else than from Compuserve, that option is open to
me. Again, I get to choose.
I think you can see that it is important for me to be
able to choose for myself.
So, the balls in your court.
Robert A. Pease
{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}!oliveb!olivej!rap
Keith B. Petersen
That's how they keep their competitors from wholesale downloading
everything to put on another competing service. It would appear that
the prohibitions in ZOO would prevent it from being carried by *any*
online commercial service, regardless of the price charged for
downloading.
--
--Keith Petersen
Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL [26.0.0.74]
Arpa: W8...@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL
Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!simtel20.army.mil!w8sdz
John Hardin
>latest version of ZOO I've seen is 2.02, there is no reason why 2.01 (which is
>very little different) could not be made available on C$erve.
>
>His restriction is really no restriction.
Interesting logic.
>You're making a big fuss over nothing.
Honestly, I tried not to.
>Although, Rahul, to avoid this kind of confusion, I would recommend you
>drop the restriction as well.
I agree with this!
>Because, even as you have described it, you are also making a bit of a fuss
>over what is really nothing, and it just confuses people like John.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|Tom Betz
>----------
Tom, you're really asking for flames back when you post little jibes like
this, but I will try to refrain. I am certainly not confused. Rather,
I was trying to clarify a point of view that is not uncommon but that
was getting lost under emotionalism. Ask yourself how you would feel about
using a tool whose latest features and bug fixes could not be made
available to you over your chosen service. Whether or not you think this
is silly, lots of people are going to feel this way. (Why is it that on
CompuServe people are so much more polite to each other? Could it be
because they are paying for their connect time?)
John Hardin
----------
Found Person
compuserve policy. I've never had the inclination to use compuserve,
mostly because I consider it to be too expensive. Someone wanna
send me e-mail on their policy concerning uploads?
Thanks
-Brett
--
Brett G. Person
North Dakota State University
uunet!ndsuvax!ncperson | ncpe...@ndsuvax.bitnet
R.D.Eager
I too have watched the ZOO/ARC discussion in silence so far. I now feel it
is time to put fingers to keyboard. There are two parts to this message;
first, about the ARC/PKARC fiasco..the second about ZOO.
First, I don't think either SEA or PKWARE are blameless in the affair, but
the one thing that really irritated me was the aggressive way in which Phil
Katz continually put down SEA's product. I am convinced that a major reason
for the later (incompatible) compression technique was that he could then
allow disinformation to be spread indicating that ARC was faulty in some
way, so that he could maximise his (fairly considerable) income from PKARC.
As for those who are now saying they will use Phil's new product before they
have even seen it, well, that is just plain stupid. It may be good, it may not;
to say you are going to use it anyway.....
Now I have blown off steam about that, on to part two. I think ZOO is a good
product, and Rahul makes some fair points about distribution. I have
changed exclusively to using ZOO, keeping only a copy of ARCE for extraction
purposes for stuff off the net. I would like to see eveyone using ZOO, since
Rahul is the only person to come out of this affair (if he was ever really
in it!) with any credibility.
I too understand Rahul's point about keeping the software low cost, and
making sure that Compuserve etc. don't rip people off. I also see that this
confusion is doing the universal acceptance of ZOO some damage, and I am
sad about that (I would like to see SEA and PKWARE lose out on this, and
in any case I believe ZOO is better). My suggestion is as follows.
1. Make it a condition that ZOO must be distributed in a complete and
unmodified form, including documentation.
2. Make it crystal clear in the documentation that if anyone reading it
has been charged more than $X for downloading, copying etc., then they
have been ripped off.
This would make sure that only a few people would be charged over the odds
before Compuserve started to lose business and any good market image they
may have. Any alteration to the documentation would potentially attract
litigation.
I know this isn't a perfect solution, but I hope it's a starting point. I
really think the ZOO restrictions need revising, while respecting Rahul's
wishes.
--
Bob Eager
r...@ukc.UUCP
...!mcvax!ukc!rde
Phone: +44 227 764000 ext 7589
Pete Holsberg
...All of the commercial online services have compilation copyrights.
...That's how they keep their competitors from wholesale downloading
...everything to put on another competing service. It would appear that
...the prohibitions in ZOO would prevent it from being carried by *any*
...online commercial service, regardless of the price charged for
...downloading.
...--
...--Keith Petersen
...Maintainer of the CP/M and MSDOS archives at SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL [26.0.0.74]
...Arpa: W8...@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL
...Uucp: {ames,decwrl,harvard,rutgers,ucbvax,uunet}!simtel20.army.mil!w8sdz
Keith,
Two things.
(1) Would you explain what is meant by a compilation copyright and how
the one you know well affects/does not affect downloading ZOO from a
commercial information service? Thnaks.
(2) Would you look in your SIMTEL archives and see if there's a CP/M-80
emulator that'll run on a 68010? Thanks again.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
jo...@trsvax.uucp
> All that CompuServe has to do is put
>zoo in an area on which it does not claim a compilation copyright, and
>charge $8/hour or less for 1200 bps downloads from that area.
Speaking as someone who has spent $3000 on CompuServe just this year :-)...
There are precedents for areas on CompuServe that do not have any cost but there
are no such precedents for areas over which CompuServe will not claim a
compilation copyright.
AND (<- Big and), you can pretty much forget the idea that your program is going
to receive any kind of special treatment in either respect. Here's why...
Let's say your CompuServe and it would certainly be nice to switch over and have
this other guys whiz bang (litigation free) archiver available on your service
but he has distribution requirements that require you to set up a special area
over which you have no compilation copyright and which you charge nothing for
or less money for.
Do you do it? No!! HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!
Why not? Because author B (who writes Spudgemaster 2000, a popular shareware
Spudge cataloger) then pops up with his new distribution requirements, "I want
my software to be distributed cheaper also, I'm tired of Compu$erve gouging
people!" Ditto with other authors. Be serious here, if you were the author of
some of these other products wouldn't you demand that they also be available at
a reduced download cost (or free)? I would.
Also the existence of the so called compilation copyright should in theory only
keep another new service from just downloading everything on CompuServe and then
just coming online one day with all of their charges $1 less an hour. It would
not (and I tend to say cannot) affect any form of distribution that private
individuals offer. I'm not inclined to argue this point however because whether
you are right or they or right on the compilation copyright they will see the
first point I mentioned above and that will be that.
>It's not a question of gripes. It's a question of keeping free
>software free, or as near free as will let people distribute it without
>losing money.
>--
>Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
Unfortunately, it is also a question of business in these peoples minds. And
business always comes before people..........
John Munsch
I'm on your side but I'm afraid it all comes down to how much you really want
ZOO to be a standard.