zmodem

[Paul Edwards]

For what reason does "putty" not have
xmodem/zmodem built in? Aren't there
situations where you are accessing a
host that doesn't have the infrastructure
to run an ftp server, but does have the
ability to send a binary data stream
to the terminal?

Thanks. Paul.

[Melzzzzz]

tftp is used on embedded devices...

>
> Thanks. Paul.


--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Paul Edwards]

On Friday, 3 August 2018 04:28:46 UTC+10, Melzzzzz wrote:

> tftp is used on embedded devices...

Thanks for the reference. It seems that
tftp requires UDP. Would it be fair to
say that xmodem/zmodem exist for simpler
communications (serial port) that don't
have networking ability?

BFN. Paul.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2018-08-02, Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, that would be so.
>
> BFN. Paul.

[Alexei A. Frounze]

I guess, for every task there's a proper tool.
Check out Tera Term: https://ttssh2.osdn.jp/
It supports XMODEM, ZMODEM, Kermit, etc.

Alex

[Rod Pemberton]

Sorry, I'm not familiar with PuTTY.

Decades ago, my friends and I used C-Kermit, rz/sz, x/y/zmodem, etc.

Usually, if a terminal is involved, the best you can do is 7-bit binary
data (7N2), since they're usually designed for 7-bit text, which means
you need a special program to convert 8-bit data to 7-bit to send or
receive binary programs, e.g., rz/sz. To use rz/sz, you need a login
account on the other end as the app is installed on both sides. You
need to compile these from C code, e.g., PC on one side, VAX mainframe
on other.

x/y/zmodem was for dial-up via modems which could send 8-bit data (8N1)
from IBM clones.

C-Kermit was like a Swiss army knife. It did everything.
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/ck90.html

There was also KA9Q NOS (network operating system), i.e., TCP/IP.
http://www.ka9q.net/code/ka9qnos/


Rod Pemberton
--
As long as the UK continues to work with the EU, Brexit won't happen.
The first pawn sacrifice: Gibraltar. Set Gibraltar free.

[Rod Pemberton]

There were also implementations of the PPP (point-to-point protocol)
and SLIP (serial line IP) protocols.

[Paul Edwards]

On Friday, 3 August 2018 16:41:59 UTC+10, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

> > For what reason does "putty" not have
> > xmodem/zmodem built in? Aren't there

I wrote to the author, and he said it
was on the wish list, so there isn't
any technical reason why Putty is
incompatible with zmodem.

> I guess, for every task there's a proper tool.
> Check out Tera Term: https://ttssh2.osdn.jp/
> It supports XMODEM, ZMODEM, Kermit, etc.

Putty is the only thing listed in the
torproject:

https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorifyHOWTO/Putty

I am working with someone who wishes to
do everything via Tor, so in order for
them to connect to my BBS which will run
under PDOS/386 under Bochs and have the
serial port appear as a socket, they will
need to be running Putty it seems. I
realize that the BBS traffic will not be
encrypted if they do this, but I think
that will be ok.

Which brings me to another issue. My PC
that has the mini-bbs is connected via
a wireless router. It appears to me that
my PC is inaccessible to people on the
internet, even though my firewall allows
the traffic. Am I right in believing that
it is mandatory for the router to have
port forwarding set up for whatever port
that I wish people to connect to?
Currently I have no port forwarding rules
in my router (I connected to it and
looked). It seems to me that without such
rules it would be impossible for the router
to know where to send the inbound traffic.

Thanks. Paul.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 05:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 3 August 2018 16:41:59 UTC+10, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
>

[snip]

> Which brings me to another issue. My PC
> that has the mini-bbs is connected via
> a wireless router. It appears to me that
> my PC is inaccessible to people on the
> internet, even though my firewall allows
> the traffic. Am I right in believing that
> it is mandatory for the router to have
> port forwarding set up for whatever port
> that I wish people to connect to?
> Currently I have no port forwarding rules
> in my router (I connected to it and
> looked). It seems to me that without such
> rules it would be impossible for the router
> to know where to send the inbound traffic.
>

First,be aware that most ISPs block almost all of the in-bound lower
value port numbers, e.g., ftp (21), smtp email (25), http webpages (80),
https (443), and on-and-on. I.e., that's why you'll see port 8080
for webpages on home computers, and ports in the 6000s range for
file-sharing, etc. So, even if you open the desired port, nothing will
connect to it if your ISP blocks that port. Officially, this is to
prevent spam and hacking etc, but it really seems to be for you to
purchase their services, i.e., email, VPNs, website hosting, network
news hosting, etc.

Second, basically, there are only a few ways to get an inbound
connection.

The first is that your computer makes an outbound connection, and then
the inbound connection is opened for return traffic. Obviously, this
won't work for people trying to connect to you.

The second is that your router opens the in-bound port and forwards
traffic to a static IP. The IP cannot be a dynamic IP like from the
routers DHCP pool. You'll need to set up a static IP in the router's
DHCP configuration page, then start DHCP IP pool addresses at a higher
IP number than the static IP value to not create an IP conflict between
static/DHCP values. You'll also need to select UDP or TCP traffic or
both in the router to forward. Finally, you'll also have set the same
static IP on the PC. The big problem with this is that to cut off
traffic to your machine, you must log in to your router and shut off the
port, or turn off your machine.

The third method is called "UDP hole punching". For this, you open an
outbound UDP connection, which opens the in-bound port for return
traffic, cancel the connection, and then have an in-bound computer
connect while the port is still open. As long as there is sufficient
traffic on the opened port, it won't close. E.g., if you initiate a
file sharing program, it may open the outbound port initially, and
sharing will occur without issues, until traffic volume declines and
the port closes. If you want a permanent setup, you'll need to use the
first method. Normally, this method is used for UDP VOIP connections,
where the port closes automatically at the end of the phone call.

UDP hole punching (w/links to hole punching for other protocols)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDP_hole_punching

Finally, there are port checking http websites online that allow you to
test if your in-bound TCP or UDP connection for open or closed
connectivity. GIYF here. Or, you can use Linux tools like NC (netcat)
or NMAP from another machine on the internet.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 05:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 3 August 2018 16:41:59 UTC+10, Alexei A. Frounze wrote:
>

[snip]

> Putty is the only thing listed in the
> torproject:
>
> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorifyHOWTO/Putty
>
> I am working with someone who wishes to
> do everything via Tor, so in order for
> them to connect to my BBS which will run
> under PDOS/386 under Bochs and have the
> serial port appear as a socket, they will
> need to be running Putty it seems. I
> realize that the BBS traffic will not be
> encrypted if they do this, but I think
> that will be ok.
>

Personally, I wouldn't do something like this unless I knew them in
real life and trust them. Even then ... I'd say no. That would be far
more work for me. What for? Just for one person? I'd let them deal
with what I provided, unless I knew for a fact they were worth their
weight in gold.


Also,

a) Why would anyone need total secrecy to contribute to an OS project?
Really, why is such secrecy needed? Shouldn't open-source apply to the
identities of the developers involved too?

b) PuTTY seems to be ideal for hacking a site once they have an account.

c) You can't identify someone connecting via TOR, e.g., code theft.

d) Do you want someone that paranoid working for you? They're likely
to steal from you or attack you as a result of paranoia ...

e) If the person is anonymous, how can you verify that the code they
might provide isn't copyrighted, isn't stolen, and doesn't have legal
claims by their employer?


Well, my alarm bells are ringing, even if yours aren't. Something
seems fishy, possibly rotten. Just my $0.02.

[Paul Edwards]

On Saturday, 4 August 2018 13:41:58 UTC+10, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> First,be aware that most ISPs block almost all of the in-bound lower
> value port numbers, e.g., ftp (21), smtp email (25), http webpages (80),
> https (443), and on-and-on. I.e., that's why you'll see port 8080
> for webpages on home computers

Thanks for clearing up that decades-old mystery!

> The second is that your router opens the in-bound port and forwards
> traffic to a static IP. The IP cannot be a dynamic IP like from the
> routers DHCP pool. You'll need to set up a static IP in the router's
> DHCP configuration page, then start DHCP IP pool addresses at a higher
> IP number than the static IP value to not create an IP conflict between
> static/DHCP values. You'll also need to select UDP or TCP traffic or
> both in the router to forward. Finally, you'll also have set the same
> static IP on the PC. The big problem with this is that to cut off
> traffic to your machine, you must log in to your router and shut off the
> port, or turn off your machine.

I was so hopeful for this. I followed all
your instructions to try to get port 8080
working.

> Finally, there are port checking http websites online that allow you to
> test if your in-bound TCP or UDP connection for open or closed
> connectivity. GIYF here. Or, you can use Linux tools like NC (netcat)
> or NMAP from another machine on the internet.

Unfortunately this site:

https://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/

reports that my port is still closed.

I'll try my ISP on Monday to see if they
are willing to help.

BFN. Paul.

[Paul Edwards]

On Saturday, 4 August 2018 13:54:44 UTC+10, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> > I am working with someone who wishes to
> > do everything via Tor, so in order for
> > them to connect to my BBS which will run
> > under PDOS/386 under Bochs and have the
> > serial port appear as a socket, they will
> > need to be running Putty it seems. I
> > realize that the BBS traffic will not be
> > encrypted if they do this, but I think
> > that will be ok.
> >
>
> Personally, I wouldn't do something like this unless I knew them in
> real life and trust them. Even then ... I'd say no. That would be far
> more work for me. What for? Just for one person? I'd let them deal
> with what I provided, unless I knew for a fact they were worth their
> weight in gold.

They have already proved that they are
worth their weight in gold by unstalling
PDOS/386 by adding things like writing
to FAT-12, and adding FAT-32 support and
LFN support.

I'm willing to bend over backwards to
cater to their idiosyncrasies.

> a) Why would anyone need total secrecy to contribute to an OS project?
> Really, why is such secrecy needed?

I don't know.

> Shouldn't open-source apply to the
> identities of the developers involved too?

They have provided their name. I'd rather
have a name than anonymous contributions.

> b) PuTTY seems to be ideal for hacking a site once they have an account.

My BBS will be too simple for it be hacked.
I'm only planning on having it do zmodem
file transfers. Before I was kicked out of
Fidonet I ran a BBS called the "Ten Minute
Limit". As its name suggested, there was a
time limit of 10 minutes during which the
caller was expected to download "pointing"
software to exchange mail and files
automatically.

I'm basically trying to revive that, but
this time I will start my own mini
network that I can't be kicked out of,
and that I won't have the ability to kick
others out of either. The newsgroups are
instead expected to split whenever there
is a personality clash and people need
to decide which side of the split they
want to be on (or both).

> c) You can't identify someone connecting via TOR, e.g., code theft.

I can't identify anyone even without TOR anyway.

> d) Do you want someone that paranoid working for you? They're likely
> to steal from you or attack you as a result of paranoia ...

Short answer - yes I do. There are so few
people willing to work on PDOS that I can't
afford to turn volunteers away.

> e) If the person is anonymous, how can you verify that the code they
> might provide isn't copyrighted, isn't stolen, and doesn't have legal
> claims by their employer?

The code has been written from scratch.
I was there during its development.
Also it's not the sort of thing that can
be cut and pasted from elsewhere. It
needs to work with the existing logic.

> Well, my alarm bells are ringing, even if yours aren't. Something
> seems fishy, possibly rotten. Just my $0.02.

This is from someone who isn't willing
to have an email address? :-) I appreciate
all the help you have given over the years
too even though I rely heavily on email
myself, and not sure how you live without it.

BFN. Paul.

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes:

> For what reason does "putty" not have xmodem/zmodem built in?

I see you've figured this out. FTR, Simon Tatham occasionally
posts to news:comp.security.ssh, so I suppose questions like
this may be brought up there.

> Aren't there situations where you are accessing a host that doesn't
> have the infrastructure to run an ftp server, but does have the
> ability to send a binary data stream to the terminal?

No idea about FTP, but "basic" HTTP/1.1 is hardly "heavyweight."
For example, we had an HTTP server running on an STM32F403, and
Guido Socher had one running on an 8-bit ATmega88 MCU.

Hence, so long as the host has (IP) network connectivity, you
may expect it to be able to run an HTTP/1.1 server.

Consider, e. g., the following HTTP server implementations.

http://github.com/contiki-os/contiki/tree/master/examples/http-socket
http://tuxgraphics.org/electronics/200611/article06111.shtml
http://acme.com/software/thttpd/
http://gnu.org/s/libmicrohttpd/
http://busybox.net/downloads/BusyBox.html#httpd

Of course, a box accessible only via a serial line is a somewhat
different beast, although, as it was mentioned, there's Serial
Line IP encapsulation, AKA SLIP.

--
FSF associate member #7257 http://am-1.org/~ivan/

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> writes:
>>>>> On 2018-08-02, Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> For what reason does "putty" not have xmodem/zmodem built in?
>> Aren't there situations where you are accessing a host that doesn't
>> have the infrastructure to run an ftp server, but does have the
>> ability to send a binary data stream to the terminal?

> tftp is used on embedded devices...

About the only use case I ever had for TFTP is network booting,
but thankfully iPXE has supported HTTP since before the fork.

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> Putty is the only thing listed in the torproject:

> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/TorifyHOWTO/Putty

> I am working with someone who wishes to do everything via Tor,

JFTR, there's Mixmaster, a system similar to Tor in its concept,
but intended for transmission of email, not (low-latency) TCP.

Incidentally, it's possible to post to newsgroups via Mixmaster,
so you can ask them to join this group. (I seems to be possible
to read it on Aioe via Tor already.)

> so in order for them to connect to my BBS which will run under
> PDOS/386 under Bochs

Curiously, why not QEMU?

> and have the serial port appear as a socket, they will need to be
> running Putty it seems.

Alternatively, it's possible to use socat(1) on the client's
end, like (assuming Tor SOCKS proxy is listening on
localhost:9050, as per default, while PDOS/386 is listening on
pdos386.example.net:6223):

$ socat TCP-LISTEN:7623 \
SOCKS4:localhost:pdos386.example.net:6223,socksport=9050 &
$ telnet localhost 7623

This assumes that Bochs actually implements the Telnet protocol.
(FWIW, QEMU does, with a ",telnet" option to -chardev.) If it
rather provides a "raw" connection (although I'm unsure if one'd
be much usable for the purpose), this can be simplified down to:

$ socat STDIO SOCKS4:localhost:pdos386.example.net:6223,socksport=9050

(BTW, you can get a free DNS name for your IP address at
http://freedns.afraid.org/.)

> I realize that the BBS traffic will not be encrypted if they do this,
> but I think that will be ok.

It /will/ be encrypted /if/ you start a Tor (relay) on your own
host as well, and configure access to the VM socket as a Tor
hidden service. Like, for instance:

## forward (uniquename).onion:23 to localhost:6223
HiddenServiceDir /var/lib/tor/minibbs
HiddenServicePort 23 127.0.0.1:6223

The first time this configuration will take effect Tor will
create a file under /var/lib/tor/minibbs that will have an
unique ".onion" name in it generated for the service. Thence,
the VM will be reachable like:

$ socat STDIO SOCKS4:localhost:nbusa5dimvzgk.onion:23,socksport=9050

Or by setting up forwarding with socat(1) and then connecting
via Telnet, similarly to the example above.

> Which brings me to another issue. My PC that has the mini-bbs is
> connected via a wireless router. It appears to me that my PC is
> inaccessible to people on the internet, even though my firewall
> allows the traffic. Am I right in believing that it is mandatory for
> the router to have port forwarding set up for whatever port that I
> wish people to connect to? Currently I have no port forwarding rules
> in my router (I connected to it and looked). It seems to me that
> without such rules it would be impossible for the router to know
> where to send the inbound traffic.

Owing in part to considerable scarcity of the legacy IPv4
addresses, it's indeed a long-standing practice /not/ to provide
more than one publicly-routable IPv4 address to (non-business)
ISP customers. Presumably that IPv4 address is assigned to your
router, while the host running your mini-BBS uses an RFC 1918
"private" IPv4 address, which is not routable on the Internet
at large. A port forwarding rule will instruct the router to
forward TCP connections to a specific port on its public IPv4
address to your BBS's private IPv4 one.

FTR, there're a number of connectivity testing services on the
Web. My preferred one is http://lg.he.net/. Usefully, it puts
the address the HTTP request came from into the input field,
so one can check whether it remains the same (a "static" address)
or changes with time ("dynamic.")

Alternatively, you can try using IPv6, which has ample address
space to assign a unique public IP to any number of hosts on
your network.

If your ISP doesn't provide IPv6 for some reason, you can get a
free network allocation and tunnel from http://tunnelbroker.net/
(for a static IPv4 address) or http://sixxs.net/ (irrespective
of having a static IPv4.)

--
FSF associate member #7257 np. Heartmender (remix) -- Aviators

[Paul Edwards]

On Saturday, 4 August 2018 23:20:52 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> > so in order for them to connect to my BBS which will run under
> > PDOS/386 under Bochs
>
> Curiously, why not QEMU?

I have qemu as well, and I would probably
use that if I go live, but I do not know
how to debug using qemu yet, but I do
know how to debug using Bochs.

> If your ISP doesn't provide IPv6 for some reason, you can get a
> free network allocation and tunnel from http://tunnelbroker.net/

Thanks for all the info, but the word
"tunnel" is of most interest to me.
Could my minibbs be defined with an
outgoing socket instead of incoming,
and people connect to my BBS by going
to some other site instead? That would
solve an additional problem in that I
think I need to pay another $10/month
if I want a static IP from my ISP.
The focus of my BBS is being able to
use the serial port rather than having
an "authentic" socket experience.

Thanks. Paul.

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Saturday, 4 August 2018 23:20:52 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>>> so in order for them to connect to my BBS which will run under
>>> PDOS/386 under Bochs

>> Curiously, why not QEMU?

> I have qemu as well, and I would probably use that if I go live,
> but I do not know how to debug using qemu yet, but I do know how
> to debug using Bochs.

ACK, makes sense.

>> If your ISP doesn't provide IPv6 for some reason, you can get a free
>> network allocation and tunnel from http://tunnelbroker.net/

> Thanks for all the info, but the word "tunnel" is of most interest to
> me. Could my minibbs be defined with an outgoing socket instead of
> incoming, and people connect to my BBS by going to some other site
> instead?

If the administrator of that other site configures it in such a
way, why not? For me, the simplest way to achieve that would be
to use SSH forwarding, like:

home$ ssh -n -N -R \*:9309:localhost:1730 -- mysite.example.net

That will establish an /outgoing/ SSH connection from home to
mysite, which will then be used to forward /incoming/ TCP
connections made to mysite.example.net port 9309 to home:1730.

I suppose that Plink from the PuTTY suite can be used similarly.

I've seen "virtual server" offers that'd easily allow for such
forwarding going from about 5 USD/month, but there're reportedly
even cheaper options.

> That would solve an additional problem in that I think I need to pay
> another $10/month if I want a static IP from my ISP.

And I gather they don't offer IPv6 as an option?

If you have a globally-routable IPv4, you can try running a Tor
relay. That will allow you to receive incoming connections for
Tor hidden services. Pros: your exact IPv4 becomes irrelevant
for the purposes of connecting to the BBS; all the traffic is
encrypted end-to-end by Tor. Cons.: your users would have to
run Tor as well; some of your network connection bandwidth will
be sacrificed to the operation of the Tor network.

Alternatively, like I said before, you can visit http://sixxs.net/
and give IPv6 a try. Pros: you get a static IP network
allocation from which you can assign any number (well, at most
2^64) of IP addresses for any purpose whatsoever. Cons.: your
users will need IPv6 connectivity, too (which, frankly, seems
less of a problem than Tor); you may inadvertently make more
services accessible via the public Internet that you wanted to.

> The focus of my BBS is being able to use the serial port rather than
> having an "authentic" socket experience.

My main concern is that as proposed, it seems that this BBS
would rather faithfully replicate the "one user at a time"
aspect of the dial-up systems of the old.

--
FSF associate member #7257 http://am-1.org/~ivan/

[Paul Edwards]

On Sunday, 5 August 2018 04:20:50 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> I've seen "virtual server" offers that'd easily allow for such
> forwarding going from about 5 USD/month, but there're reportedly
> even cheaper options.

Actually I'm already paying for web
hosting at dreamhost.com - my website
is http://www.mutazilah.org
Maybe I can run qemu on that.

> > That would solve an additional problem in that I think I need to pay
> > another $10/month if I want a static IP from my ISP.
>
> And I gather they don't offer IPv6 as an option?

I don't know. I might ask them on Monday
when I ask them if they are blocking all
inbound traffic which is what it looks
like to me.

> If you have a globally-routable IPv4, you can try running a Tor
> relay. That will allow you to receive incoming connections for

I'd rather not get too involved with that.
The serial port was meant to provide a
simple solution to me instead of having
to drive a network card.

> > The focus of my BBS is being able to use the serial port rather than
> > having an "authentic" socket experience.
>
> My main concern is that as proposed, it seems that this BBS
> would rather faithfully replicate the "one user at a time"
> aspect of the dial-up systems of the old.

Yes, and it will have a 10 minute limit
on it too. I used to run a BBS called
the Ten Minute Limit which only gave
BBS users 10 minutes - enough time to
download the appropriate software (some
of which I wrote, like a Telix SALT
script) to connect to my BBS automatically
and do file requests etc.

So I guess I am trying to get back to
the state of affairs I had then, before
pushing forward again. Note that I am
trying to consolidate a position using
public domain (explicit notice) software
as far as possible. My needs are fairly
minimal. I'd like to talk to people like
you using the English alphabet. I used
to be able to do that via echomail
groups on my BBS. I would be happy to
return to that state of affairs, but
change things like I now have a public
domain operating system too, and it
seems like it might be good enough to
drive a BBS. I already have a public
domain zmodem too.

I have to start from somewhere.

BFN. Paul.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 03:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 4 August 2018 13:41:58 UTC+10, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> > The second is that your router opens the in-bound port and forwards
> > traffic to a static IP. The IP cannot be a dynamic IP like from the
> > routers DHCP pool. You'll need to set up a static IP in the
> > router's DHCP configuration page, then start DHCP IP pool addresses
> > at a higher IP number than the static IP value to not create an IP
> > conflict between static/DHCP values. You'll also need to select
> > UDP or TCP traffic or both in the router to forward. Finally,
> > you'll also have set the same static IP on the PC. The big problem
> > with this is that to cut off traffic to your machine, you must log
> > in to your router and shut off the port, or turn off your machine.
>
> I was so hopeful for this. I followed all
> your instructions to try to get port 8080
> working.

Maybe try 8081 in case your ISP blocks 8080 too? Otherwise, I'd
suggest is to retry this, make sure everything is enabled or set
correctly. Also, make sure you reboot the router for the settings to
take. Another option is to search for "port forwarding" and you brand
of router. Maybe there are some additional steps for it.

[Mel]

On my router 'static' address is assigned via dhcp as well so there
is no conflict nor anything that has to be assigned on pc... Address
is simply bound to mac address..

--
Press any key to continue or any other to quit

[Paul Edwards]

On Sunday, 5 August 2018 11:01:55 UTC+10, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> correctly. Also, make sure you reboot the router for the settings to
> take. Another option is to search for "port forwarding" and you brand

I contacted my ISP and told them it wasn't
working, and they said that for people with
dynamic IPs, all ports are blocked, and I
would need to pay an extra $10/month (US$7.50)
for a static IP address.

So I asked them to add that for now, and
finally I got it to work. There was one
more trick that someone else told me though.
Bochs needs to listen on my static IP address,
not "localhost".

BFN. Paul.

[Paul Edwards]

Is there a standard port number for a dumb
terminal that doesn't understand the
telnet commands?

Or do people just use port 23 (telnet),
and hope the host doesn't send telnet
commands?

I need to know what port number people
should be calling my BBS on. Note that
my BBS is expected to support zmodem,
but I'm not expecting there to be a
port number that signifies zmodem. But
I do expect some sort of arbitrary tty.

Thanks. Paul.

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 16:49:27 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I contacted my ISP and told them it wasn't
> working, and they said that for people with
> dynamic IPs, all ports are blocked, and I
> would need to pay an extra $10/month (US$7.50)
> for a static IP address.

High and low? Greedy ... I wouldn't have suspected that.

With a dynamic IP, you probably need DDNS to update your changing IP
address to match your domain name:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_DNS

IIRC, there is something in my router for that too.


Rod Pemberton
--
I don't even use Facebook and even I can fully recognize Mark
Zuckerberg's beliefs and policies are causing it to die a slow death.
Time to give Mark the boot?

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a standard port number for a dumb
> terminal that doesn't understand the
> telnet commands?

Sorry, I'm not sure ...

> Or do people just use port 23 (telnet),
> and hope the host doesn't send telnet
> commands?

Sorry, I'm not sure ...

> I need to know what port number people
> should be calling my BBS on. Note that
> my BBS is expected to support zmodem,
> but I'm not expecting there to be a
> port number that signifies zmodem. But
> I do expect some sort of arbitrary tty.
>

I would suspect that either telnet (23) or SSH (22) or rlogin (513)
would be used in normal circumstances.

Berkely R-commands - lists port numbers for rcp, rexec, rlogin, rsh,
rstat, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_r-commands

IIRC, the finger (79) protocol was obsoleted or is now mostly unused.
Does anyone use Gopher (70) anymore?

The best thing is to probably pick a high port number, above 1024,
which a) won't be scanned by port scanners looking for open ports and
b) doesn't have a high traffic service on the port. I.e., don't pick
common network protocols, email, gaming, file sharing, Usenet news,
streaming radio, etc, e.g., too many bad connections.

There are lots of unused ports and crap protocols. Frequently, there
are multiple services on the same ports. You'll see this at the first
link. The second link seems to be a more formally approved list as
they only list one service per port.
https://www.speedguide.net/ports.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TCP_and_UDP_port_numbers

You could look at these scanners to avoid various ports which are in
common usage, especially high-use high-value ports such as for gaming,
file share, etc. You'll have to run the four scans on the first page
to see the port numbers.
http://www.whatsmyip.org/port-scanner/
http://www.t1shopper.com/tools/port-scan/

[Rod Pemberton]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 18:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a standard port number for a dumb
> terminal that doesn't understand the
> telnet commands?
>

Whatever port you do choose, you might consider hiding it from port
scanners. I'm not sure how this would affect your users connecting.
Maybe, the knock could be embedded in a web page. After they visit the
web page, the port opens after you computer is sent the correct knock
handshake sequence from the web server. This would inadvertently block
direct connects of your users to the port as a cost of hiding the port
from nuisances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_knocking

[Rod Pemberton]

Says the man with the "anonymous" dynamic IP. :-)


Rod Pemberton
--
Religion was the opiate of the masses. Now, Facebook is the Matrix for
millennials. Facebook is powered by users' energy. Millennials need to
pop the red pill.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2018-08-12, Rod Pemberton <inv...@lkntrgzxc.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 04:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, 4 August 2018 13:54:44 UTC+10, Rod Pemberton wrote:
>>
>
>> > Well, my alarm bells are ringing, even if yours aren't. Something
>> > seems fishy, possibly rotten. Just my $0.02.
>>
>> This is from someone who isn't willing
>> to have an email address? :-)
>
> Says the man with the "anonymous" dynamic IP. :-)

Can you see my IP address ? ;)
>
>
> Rod Pemberton


--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

[Rod Pemberton]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:17:21 GMT
Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:

> On 2018-08-12, Rod Pemberton <inv...@lkntrgzxc.com> wrote:

> >> > Well, my alarm bells are ringing, even if yours aren't.
> >> > Something seems fishy, possibly rotten. Just my $0.02.
> >>
> >> This is from someone who isn't willing
> >> to have an email address? :-)
> >
> > Says the man with the "anonymous" dynamic IP. :-)
>
> Can you see my IP address ? ;)

Nope.

It looks like more and more Usenet providers are stripping it or
encrypting it.

I meant his IP likely changes for "anonymity" purposes, i.e., dynamic
not static. But, yes, he's also using a Usenet service (Google Groups I
think) that posts his IP on his message. So, he's not as anonymous as
he thinks by using a dynamic IP, i.e., IPs can be geo-located.

https://www.iplocation.net/

[Melzzzzz]

On 2018-08-13, Rod Pemberton <inv...@lkntrgzxc.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 13:17:21 GMT
> Melzzzzz <Melz...@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-08-12, Rod Pemberton <inv...@lkntrgzxc.com> wrote:
>
>> >> > Well, my alarm bells are ringing, even if yours aren't.
>> >> > Something seems fishy, possibly rotten. Just my $0.02.
>> >>
>> >> This is from someone who isn't willing
>> >> to have an email address? :-)
>> >
>> > Says the man with the "anonymous" dynamic IP. :-)
>>
>> Can you see my IP address ? ;)
>
> Nope.
>
> It looks like more and more Usenet providers are stripping it or
> encrypting it.
>
> I meant his IP likely changes for "anonymity" purposes, i.e., dynamic
> not static. But, yes, he's also using a Usenet service (Google Groups I
> think) that posts his IP on his message. So, he's not as anonymous as
> he thinks by using a dynamic IP, i.e., IPs can be geo-located.
>
> https://www.iplocation.net/

Google does not likes TOR. But any proxy on internet will do.
What puzzles me most is why he uses google groups if he wants to stay
anonimous?

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Sunday, 5 August 2018 04:20:50 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

>>>>> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes:

>> I've seen "virtual server" offers that'd easily allow for such
>> forwarding going from about 5 USD/month, but there're reportedly
>> even cheaper options.

> Actually I'm already paying for web hosting at dreamhost.com - my
> website is http://www.mutazilah.org Maybe I can run qemu on that.

Perhaps. But note that even if they offer "shell" access, they
may still forbid port forwarding. A sure sign that you can do port
forwarding is that you have "root" access to the remote system.

>>> That would solve an additional problem in that I think I need to
>>> pay another $10/month if I want a static IP from my ISP.

>> And I gather they don't offer IPv6 as an option?

> I don't know. I might ask them on Monday when I ask them if they are
> blocking all inbound traffic which is what it looks like to me.

If they charge $10/month for allowing inbound connections,
I wouldn't expect them to offer IPv6, especially free of charge.

It should still be possible to get free IPv6 network allocation
and forwarding from SixXS, though.

>> If you have a globally-routable IPv4, you can try running a Tor
>> relay. That will allow you to receive incoming connections for

> I'd rather not get too involved with that. The serial port was meant
> to provide a simple solution to me instead of having to drive a
> network card.

Tor redirects incoming connections made to a TCP port of a
".onion" hidden service name to the configured TCP/IPv4
host:port pair. Which may very well be a Bochs (or QEMU) TCP
socket representing the VM's serial port.

Then again, Tor requires inbound connections, and once you
have them, you can (AFAICT) go without Tor.

Unless, of course, you want encryption and "pseudonymity" Tor
provides.

>>> The focus of my BBS is being able to use the serial port rather
>>> than having an "authentic" socket experience.

>> My main concern is that as proposed, it seems that this BBS would
>> rather faithfully replicate the "one user at a time" aspect of the
>> dial-up systems of the old.

> Yes, and it will have a 10 minute limit on it too. I used to run a
> BBS called the Ten Minute Limit which only gave BBS users 10 minutes
> - enough time to download the appropriate software (some of which I
> wrote, like a Telix SALT script) to connect to my BBS automatically
> and do file requests etc.

> So I guess I am trying to get back to the state of affairs I had
> then, before pushing forward again.

I'm unsure that you can force TCP disconnect from within the VM,
however. I suppose you'd need some "dispatcher" code forwarding
connections from the outside world to the VM, disallowing them
when the "line" is "busy" (which Bochs should already do) and
terminating them on timeout (which I doubt it does.)

An alternative would be for said code to manage lists of "free"
and "busy" VMs and forward the connections appropriately. Or it
could start new VMs automatically (up to a specified limit.)
That, however, implies that VMs do not communicate to one
another in any way, which would preclude them from being used as
"proper" BBSes.

> Note that I am trying to consolidate a position using public domain
> (explicit notice) software as far as possible.

As I've mentioned in this very group back in 2013, having
a "public domain" notice may not be enough, as there're
jurisdictions which do not recognize such a notion. (Assuming
that you /do/ care that your software will be free worldwide,
and not just in selected countries.)

Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain:

In 2009 the Creative commons released the CC0, which was created
for compatibility with law domains which have no concept of
dedicating into public domain.

And later in the same subsection:

In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation recommends the
Creative Commons CC0 license to dedicate content to the public
domain, and the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and
License (PDDL) for data.

I still do not seem to understand the necessity of the software
to be "public domain," however. Even though I've published some
works under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication myself, it seems
that about the only thing it's good for is that it makes possible
for some Big Money, Inc. to take your code, improve it, and hide
it forever from the prying eyes of their users.

Another thing to note are digital rights management (DRM)
measures, which are generally illegal for the user to circumvent
-- regardless of the copyright status of the work they're
applied to. Which is why contemporary copyleft licenses, such
as GNU GPLv3 and CC BY-SA 3.0, expressly forbid the use of DRM
while distributing the covered works.

> My needs are fairly minimal. I'd like to talk to people like you
> using the English alphabet. I used to be able to do that via
> echomail groups on my BBS. I would be happy to return to that state
> of affairs, but change things like I now have a public domain
> operating system too, and it seems like it might be good enough to
> drive a BBS.

If anything, I hope that your BBS will use Usenet-compatible
formats for "groups," as opposed to those compatible with
FidoNet echomail.

> I already have a public domain zmodem too.

> I have to start from somewhere.

I wonder if you can also adapt Pdlzip [1], a public domain
compressor based on the LZMA encoding, to run on your system.

I have expected that the Free Software Directory would reveal
many more CC0-licensed packages, but apparently it has none on
file [2]. However, there're some "public domain" ones [3].

[1] http://nongnu.org/lzip/pdlzip.html
[2] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/License:CC0
[3] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/PublicDomain
http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/License:PublicDomain

--
FSF associate member #7257 np. Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven) -- Papalin

[Paul Edwards]

On Thursday, 16 August 2018 02:32:41 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> > Note that I am trying to consolidate a position using public domain
> > (explicit notice) software as far as possible.
>
> As I've mentioned in this very group back in 2013, having
> a "public domain" notice may not be enough, as there're
> jurisdictions which do not recognize such a notion. (Assuming
> that you /do/ care that your software will be free worldwide,
> and not just in selected countries.)
>
> Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain:
>
> In 2009 the Creative commons released the CC0, which was created
> for compatibility with law domains which have no concept of
> dedicating into public domain.

I release PDOS as both public domain
and mention CC0 for the benefit of those
that don't have that concept.

> I still do not seem to understand the necessity of the software
> to be "public domain," however. Even though I've published some
> works under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication myself, it seems
> that about the only thing it's good for is that it makes possible
> for some Big Money, Inc. to take your code, improve it, and hide
> it forever from the prying eyes of their users.

If that is what Big Money wishes to do,
and they see a commercial opportunity
that way, I would like to see them
produce the product, based on my work.

> I wonder if you can also adapt Pdlzip [1], a public domain
> compressor based on the LZMA encoding, to run on your system.

I was under the impression that info-zip
unzip was PD and that is what I was going
to port.

BFN. Paul.

[Paul Edwards]

On Monday, 13 August 2018 21:35:36 UTC+10, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> I meant his IP likely changes for "anonymity" purposes, i.e., dynamic
> not static. But, yes, he's also using a Usenet service (Google Groups I
> think) that posts his IP on his message. So, he's not as anonymous as
> he thinks by using a dynamic IP, i.e., IPs can be geo-located.

I am not attempting to be anonymous. I
was using dynamic IP because that's what
my ISP (myrepublic.com.au) provides to
ordinary users. A static IP costs an
extra US$7.50/month and I had no reason
to pay that until now.

BFN. Paul.

[Paul Edwards]

On Thursday, 16 August 2018 02:32:41 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> > My needs are fairly minimal. I'd like to talk to people like you
> > using the English alphabet. I used to be able to do that via
> > echomail groups on my BBS. I would be happy to return to that state
> > of affairs, but change things like I now have a public domain
> > operating system too, and it seems like it might be good enough to
> > drive a BBS.
>
> If anything, I hope that your BBS will use Usenet-compatible
> formats for "groups," as opposed to those compatible with
> FidoNet echomail.

This is a very tough choice.

If I switch to the Usenet-compatible format
I would lose the relatively large number of
hobbyist networked BBSes. I was thinking of
starting with Fidonet and then discussing
there how to switch to Usenet. The other
disadvantage of Fidonet is that a dispute
with the NC can cause an arbitrary
denodelisting (that's what happened to me
last time I was a node). So I'm looking for
protection from that too, at some point.

BFN. Paul.

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, 16 August 2018 02:32:41 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

[...]

>> Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain:

>> In 2009 the Creative commons released the CC0, which was created for
>> compatibility with law domains which have no concept of dedicating
>> into public domain.

> I release PDOS as both public domain and mention CC0 for the benefit
> of those that don't have that concept.

AIUI, when I release my software under CC0, it's the same as
releasing it as public domain in jurisdictions where such legal
notion exists, /and/ under a permissive free software license
where it doesn't.

I'm unsure what you mean by "mentioning CC0," and what legal
consequences (and implications) it would have, however.

>> I still do not seem to understand the necessity of the software to
>> be "public domain," however. Even though I've published some works
>> under the CC0 Public Domain Dedication myself,

(Most recently via the news:alt.sources newsgroup.)

>> it seems that about the only thing it's good for is that it makes
>> possible for some Big Money, Inc. to take your code, improve it, and
>> hide it forever from the prying eyes of their users.

> If that is what Big Money wishes to do, and they see a commercial
> opportunity that way, I would like to see them produce the product,
> based on my work.

To me, to "see" software is to read its source. When I release
my works under CC0, I fully understand that there's a tangible
chance that, should Big Money employ it in some "product," I'll
never "see" the result.

>> I wonder if you can also adapt Pdlzip [1], a public domain
>> compressor based on the LZMA encoding, to run on your system.

> I was under the impression that info-zip unzip was PD and that is
> what I was going to port.

According to [1], only older versions of several specific files
used by Unzip are in the public domain.

More to the point is that Unzip (vs. Pdlzip) is:

a. (un)archiver (handles multiple files at a time), not compressor
(handles a single octet stream);

b. only handles decompression, but not compression;

c. implements algorithms predating the (relatively recent) LZMA
coding, the former typically resulting in lower compression
ratios; they tend to allow for faster compression, though.

[1] http://infozip.sourceforge.net/license.html

--
FSF associate member #7257 np. Twilight Zone -- Iron Maiden

[Paul Edwards]

On Sunday, 26 August 2018 20:55:55 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> I'm unsure what you mean by "mentioning CC0," and what legal
> consequences (and implications) it would have, however.

This is what I say:

Released to the public domain
You may use this entire package for any purpose whatsoever
without restriction, as discussed here:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

> > If that is what Big Money wishes to do, and they see a commercial
> > opportunity that way, I would like to see them produce the product,
> > based on my work.
>
> To me, to "see" software is to read its source. When I release
> my works under CC0, I fully understand that there's a tangible
> chance that, should Big Money employ it in some "product," I'll
> never "see" the result.

I am happy to just watch what sovereign
decision that Big Money A and Big Money B
choose to make when competing against
Big Money M (Microsoft).

If they make a sovereign decision to not
public source while competing with
Microsoft, so be it, let's see how they
go in the free marketplace.

BFN. Paul.

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Paul Edwards <muta...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Sunday, 26 August 2018 20:55:55 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

[...]

>>> If that is what Big Money wishes to do, and they see a commercial
>>> opportunity that way, I would like to see them produce the product,
>>> based on my work.

>> To me, to "see" software is to read its source. When I release my
>> works under CC0, I fully understand that there's a tangible chance
>> that, should Big Money employ it in some "product," I'll never "see"
>> the result.

> I am happy to just watch what sovereign decision that Big Money A
> and Big Money B choose to make when competing against Big Money M
> (Microsoft).

> If they make a sovereign decision to not public source while competing
> with Microsoft, so be it, let's see how they go in the free marketplace.

And what if Microsoft decides to use your software when
competing with A and G? It doesn't even have to be public
domain -- about any permissive license will go. To quote:

http://catb.org/esr/software.html

giflib

The ubiquitous service library for rendering GIFs. I handed off
the project 1994 to avoid problems with the U. S. patent system,
but accepted back the lead in 2012. This code had the odd effect
of making me virtually omnipresent; it seems nobody has ever
bothered to write a replacement, and it's now ubiquitous in web
browsers, cellphones and gaming consoles. In a nicely ironic touch,
it earned me an appearance in the credits of the Microsoft XBox.

--
FSF associate member #7257 http://softwarefreedomday.org/ 15 September 2018

[Rick C. Hodgin]

The idea of creating software for the Public Domain is that it's
available for anyone to use. What Microsoft or some other company
does is package together and author various software in a way that
is desirable for people. In such a case, you wind up paying for
their service for having aggregated that software together for you,
plus any enhancements they have made.

When you put your software under a restrictive license, even when
it's one like GNU's GPL, you're dictating to people how your soft-
ware can be used. You become your own monopoly forcing people to
obey your dictatorship-forced view of world compliance.

Releasing into the Public Domain says to everyone, "Here it is.
Use it as you see fit."

Releasing in a PD license is the only way to truly give to people.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Rick C Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> The idea of creating software for the Public Domain is that it's
> available for anyone to use. What Microsoft or some other company
> does is package together and author various software in a way that
> is desirable for people.

Which people are you referring to? Because I don't feel included.

> In such a case, you wind up paying for their service for having
> aggregated that software together for you, plus any enhancements they
> have made.

It's a noble endeavor to learn how the things you use work.
It's the way one learns to create new and better things. Yet
"Microsoft" is not interested in letting you learn, as that
means you can create and compete with them. In their pride,
they effectively claim to have achieved perfection with their
software, and won't let you improve it. And so they make
curiosity a crime.

> When you put your software under a restrictive license, even when

> it's one like GNU's GPL, you're dictating to people how your software
> can be used.

That's simply untrue: no free software license, GNU GPL included,
places any restrictions whatsoever on how you /use/ the software.

Copyleft, however, requires that when (and if) you share, you let
the others enjoy in full what you have been given; that you give
to others what should have been a universal right, but what the
copyright law -- devised long ago with books and paintings, not
computer programs, in mind -- mistakenly made into a privilege.
The privilege of being able to learn from the works of the others.

> You become your own monopoly forcing people to obey your
> dictatorship-forced view of world compliance.

I don't think that "monopoly," as conventionally defined, is a
term that fits here.

That said, I acknowledge that copyleft is a creation of man, and
as such may be flawed. But if the law of man is also flawed (or
is it not?), how is it not fair to use the former to overcome
the flaws of the latter?

> Releasing into the Public Domain says to everyone, "Here it is.
> Use it as you see fit."

> Releasing in a PD license is the only way to truly give to people.

While releasing software into the public domain implies that you
won't be able to obstruct curiosity of others by legal means,
it sadly doesn't imply you aren't at the same time using, say,
technical means to do the same.

For example, by releasing a compiled binary into the public
domain (without its respective source) you may be giving
utility, but you will be denying knowledge.

[Rick C. Hodgin]

On 09/02/2018 10:17 AM, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>> Rick C Hodgin <rick.c...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > The idea of creating software for the Public Domain is that it's
> > available for anyone to use. What Microsoft or some other company
> > does is package together and author various software in a way that
> > is desirable for people.
>
> Which people are you referring to? Because I don't feel included.

The hundred of millions worldwide who buy their products each year.

> > In such a case, you wind up paying for their service for having
> > aggregated that software together for you, plus any enhancements they
> > have made.
>
> It's a noble endeavor to learn how the things you use work.
> It's the way one learns to create new and better things. Yet
> "Microsoft" is not interested in letting you learn, as that
> means you can create and compete with them. In their pride,
> they effectively claim to have achieved perfection with their
> software, and won't let you improve it. And so they make
> curiosity a crime.

I agree. I think what Microsoft does is disastrous beyond words. They
are harming people worldwide with their greed. It's why I'm working on
my own OS kernel, developer toolset, and other things.

> > When you put your software under a restrictive license, even when
> > it's one like GNU's GPL, you're dictating to people how your software
> > can be used.
>
> That's simply untrue: no free software license, GNU GPL included,
> places any restrictions whatsoever on how you /use/ the software.

It places restrictions on what you do with the source code.

> Copyleft, however, requires that when (and if) you share, you let
> the others enjoy in full what you have been given; that you give
> to others what should have been a universal right, but what the
> copyright law -- devised long ago with books and paintings, not
> computer programs, in mind -- mistakenly made into a privilege.
> The privilege of being able to learn from the works of the others.

Copyleft mandates that /your/ software be released under the same
license. For that reason, it's as bad as a proprietary monopoly license
in my opinion.

> > You become your own monopoly forcing people to obey your
> > dictatorship-forced view of world compliance.
>
> I don't think that "monopoly," as conventionally defined, is a
> term that fits here.

It is. You use the force of law to dictate to other people how they may
use your software. There aren't alternatives to go to for your
software, so you become the monopoly controller on how it can be used by
every person seeking to use it.

> That said, I acknowledge that copyleft is a creation of man, and
> as such may be flawed. But if the law of man is also flawed (or
> is it not?), how is it not fair to use the former to overcome
> the flaws of the latter?

One of the things I've done with my Public Domain license (called Public
Benefit License) is release it with a non-legally-by-man-imposed
request: That the people who receive the software keep it free and open
as they received it from us.

I put that request back on them and their relationship with God, and not
on man's laws.

> > Releasing into the Public Domain says to everyone, "Here it is.
> > Use it as you see fit."
>
> > Releasing in a PD license is the only way to truly give to people.
>
> While releasing software into the public domain implies that you
> won't be able to obstruct curiosity of others by legal means,
> it sadly doesn't imply you aren't at the same time using, say,
> technical means to do the same.

Correct. You're using only the laws of giving.

> For example, by releasing a compiled binary into the public
> domain (without its respective source) you may be giving
> utility, but you will be denying knowledge.
>

My example refers to people releasing what they've done in the public
domain, meaning their source code / other source files a well.

--
Rick C. Hodgin

[Paul Edwards]

On Sunday, 2 September 2018 22:07:58 UTC+10, Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> And what if Microsoft decides to use your software when
> competing with A and G?

They are welcome to do so. I believe in
capitalist competition, and that if you
lower the input costs to corporations
you will eventually lower the cost of
the product, benefiting the entire world.
A great form of foreign aid too.

BFN. Paul.