zmtx/zmrx, zmodem implementation build from scratch
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
> This archive contains a implementation of Zmodem which is not based on
> existing sources but is developed from scratch. Consult the readme and
About the only thing is this package that are created from
scratch are the "new" authors' copyright notices which were
illegally substituted for the Omen Technology Copyright notice
on rz/sz 2.24 from which it was originally copied. To dispel
any doubt about copying and copyright infringement, note the
following juxtaposition of zmodem.h from rz/sz 3.24 and the
zmodem.h which Jongsma claims was written from scratch.
If this "zm" package is not a violation of copyright law then
neither the GNU Copyleft nor Columbia University's Kermit
copyrights have any protection of law.
/*
* Z M O D E M . H Manifest constants for ZMODEM
* application to application file transfer protocol
* Copyright 1993 Omen Technology Inc All Rights Reserved
*/
/*
* zmodem.h
* zmodem constants
* (C) Mattheij Computer Service 1994
*/
#define ZMAXHLEN 16 /* Max header information length NEVER CHANGE */
#define ZMAXHLEN 0x10 /* maximum header information length */
#define ZMAXSPLEN 1024 /* Max subpacket length NEVER CHANGE */
#define ZMAXSPLEN 0x400 /* maximum subpacket length */
#define CANVHDR 01 /* Variable headers OK */
#define ZF1_CANVHDR 0x01 /* Variable headers OK */
#define ZMCHNG 8 /* Change filename if destination exists */
#define ZF1_ZMCHNG 8 /* Change filename if destination exists */
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX c...@omen.COM 503-621-3406
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-621-3746 FAX:-3735 CIS:70007,2304
Kent Williams
by c...@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX):
> In article <30clkg$o...@news4all.hacktic.nl> pa...@hacktic.nl
(Paul Jongsma) writes:
>> This archive contains a implementation of Zmodem which is not based on
>> existing sources but is developed from scratch. Consult the readme and
>
> About the only thing is this package that are created from
> scratch are the "new" authors' copyright notices which were
> illegally substituted for the Omen Technology Copyright notice
> on rz/sz 2.24 from which it was originally copied. To dispel
> any doubt about copying and copyright infringement, note the
> following juxtaposition of zmodem.h from rz/sz 3.24 and the
> zmodem.h which Jongsma claims was written from scratch.
>
There is actually a lot of code that is different between rz/sz and
zmtx and zmrx; this is evident from the fact that rz/sz work really
well, and zmtx and zmrx don't work at all, at least when I tried them
on AIX.
It should be noted that zmodem was developed by Mr. Forsberg, and the
sale of his implementation of the protocol is a primary source of his
income. He is not Bill Gates -- if you call Omen Technologies, you
will either get him or his wife. Considering the daily, constant,
commercial use of his products, it would behoove companies in the
internet community to shell out a few bucks to him for his efforts.
I am a satisfied customer of Mr. Forsberg (for over 10 years!), and have
no other connection to him.
Kent Williams -- ke...@cadsi.com | Opinions expressed here are those of |
"A man who has nothing in | a two headed peg-legged midget who |
particular to recommend him | lives in my ear, not CADSI's |
discusses all sorts of subjects at +--------------------------------------+
random as though he knew everything." - One of Sei Shonagon's Hateful Things
Paul A Vixie
that contains text or algorythms similar to your own previous (copyrighted,
shareware) rz/sz, I'm sure the "zm" authors will change it for you. I can't
see a lot of similarity in any other file. Can you?
Interesting selection of newsgroups. I'm sure the kermit people are going
to be fascinated by this zmodem debate. But just in case they aren't, I'm
specifying a Followup-To on this article which removes the kermit group.
(Btw, when I get the automatic reminders that I'm posting nonsource to the
alt.sources group, I'm going to flame the sender, his postmaster, his mother,
his internet access provider, and then the sender again just for measure.)
--
Paul Vixie
Redwood City, CA
decwrl!vixie!paul
<pa...@vix.com>
R. Stewart Ellis
Amen! Spam the net nazis!
RE the header file, what about getting it from a very early release of rzsz?
--
R.Stewart(Stew) Ellis, Assoc.Prof., (Off)313-762-9765 ___________________
Humanities & Social Science, GMI Eng.& Mgmt. Inst. / _____ ______
Flint, MI 48504 el...@nova.gmi.edu / / / / / /
Gopher,chimera,nn,tin,jove,modems, free code is best!/________/ / / / /
Peter da Silva
unlike the BSDI/UCB/USL case it looks like a deliberate attempt to disguise
a violation of copyright, at least in the case of the zmodem.h file, rather
than accidental release of a handful of files as in the Net/2 distribution.
I have some problems with Omen Technology's creative redefinition of "non-
commercial use" in their shareware version of the zmodem host-side programs,
but the actual terms of that license are legal and supportable. I'm going
to delete my copy of zm as soon as I get home.
Clarence Wilkerson
strange... the idea that a non author could take public
domain work by someone else and laundry it to be under
a GPL license. Note that here there is no claim of
intellectual effort involved in a rewrite. It's a
repackinging.
Article: 2503 of comp.os.linux.announce
From: mpo...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Matthew D Porter)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
Subject: lrzsz 0.10
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 17 Jul 1994 21:59:41 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 34
Approved: linux-a...@tc.cornell.edu (Lars Wirzenius)
Message-ID: <30c9kd$d...@hydra.Helsinki.FI>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.helsinki.fi
Keywords: rzsz, Zmodem, file transfer protocol
I've uploaded lrzsz 0.10 to sunsite as lrzsz-0.10.tar.gz. It is currently in
/pub/Linux/Incoming, but will probably settle in /pub/Linux/apps/comm in the
near future. lrzsz is a cosmetically changed rzsz based on the last public
domain version so there should be no distribution problems with it.
The README from lrzsz follows:
------------------------------
Lrz/Lsz is a cosmetically modified zmodem/ymodem/xmodem package built from the
public-domain version of Chuck Forsberg's rzsz package. This package contains
NO code from later releases of rzsz which would preclude it from being released
under the GPL.
Lrz/Lsz was created to provide a working GNU copylefted zmodem solution for
the Debian GNU/Linux distribution although it will work for any Linux
system.
Please note that credit should be given to Chuck Forsberg (rzsz) and Stephen
Satchell/Satchell Evaluations (crc routines) for this package, any
modifications by myself were minor and merely introduced to better mesh rzsz
with the standard Linux communications programs.
lrzsz 0.10 4-15-94
Matt Porter
por...@osu.edu
--
Matt Porter "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is
por...@osu.edu for good men to do nothing." --Edmund Burke
finger mpo...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu for PGP Public Key
--
Mail submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: linux-a...@tc.cornell.edu
PLEASE remember Keywords: and a short description of the software.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
I don't see any problem with this lrz/lsz package based on the
public domain rz/sz code. I presume "cosmetically changed"
means the user interface has been modified to better suit his
tastes. As far as I know he has the right to add value to the
PD rz/sz and do with the result what he wishes. He does not
appear to be misrepresenting the derivation of the work.
Gene Kim
Peter da Silva <pe...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>It sure looks like zm is based directly on Omen Technologies source, and
>unlike the BSDI/UCB/USL case it looks like a deliberate attempt to disguise
>a violation of copyright, at least in the case of the zmodem.h file, rather
>than accidental release of a handful of files as in the Net/2 distribution.
Could you elaborate about what you find objectionable? Were the
zm authors to simply replace their zmodem.h file with one from an old
rzsz package, would your qualms about copyright violations go away?
Although copyrights apply to text matter, which includes header
files and code alike, I find nothing blatantly objectionable or
deceiving about lifting and renaming a bunch of defines. After all,
they are just Zmodem opcodes -- there are only so many ways you can
describe them while still retaining their meaning.
PS: I have nothing against Chuck. I remember reading his
postings with some awe on the Exec-PC BBS back in 1984. But I still
believe writing free, unencumbered software is good karma. :-)
Gene
---
Gene Kim (gk...@cs.arizona.edu)
University of Arizona, Gould Simpson Bldg, Rm 710, Tucson, AZ 85721
Home: 602-881-6642, Office: 602-621-4215
--
Gene Kim (gk...@cs.arizona.edu)
University of Arizona, Gould Simpson Bldg, Rm 710, Tucson, AZ 85721
Home: 602-881-6642, Office: 602-621-4215
Bill Pemberton
Kent Williams <will...@herky.cs.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>There is actually a lot of code that is different between rz/sz and
>zmtx and zmrx; this is evident from the fact that rz/sz work really
>well, and zmtx and zmrx don't work at all, at least when I tried them
>on AIX.
>
zmtx and zmrx work fine under AIX for me. The zmrx program does have a
problem with one of the PC comm packages that I use, but it is an oddball
package.
--
Bill
Peter da Silva
Gene Kim <gk...@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
> Could you elaborate about what you find objectionable? Were the
> zm authors to simply replace their zmodem.h file with one from an old
> rzsz package, would your qualms about copyright violations go away?
No.
They have established a reasonable suspicion that the whole package is
copied, by using a clumsily disguised zmodem.h file. What else have they
"borrowed"?
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"
Andrew Valencia
>They have established a reasonable suspicion that the whole package is
>copied, by using a clumsily disguised zmodem.h file. What else have they
>"borrowed"?
Yes, but I went wading through the source hoping to find any other sign of
copying, and failed. If any of the C source had been duplicated as
clumsily, I would've expected to have found it. Instead, the structure, way
of handling cancels, timeouts, etc. all look substantially different.
Has anybody found other footprints of this alleged copying in the actual
data structures and algorithms of this implementation?
Andy
Erick Herring
>> Is zmodem.h the only file you're concerned about? If that't the
>> only file that contains text or algorythms similar to your own
>> previous (copyrighted, shareware) rz/sz, I'm sure the "zm" authors
>> will change it for you. I can't see a lot of similarity in any
>> other file. Can you?
As a point of precedence, there is no firm legal decision as to the
copyright protections afforded to interface descriptions such as
header files.
Regards,
Erick
-----
Erick Herring | Computation is the art of carefully throwing
H Data, Aalborg | away information [and] Life is the art of
UNIX Consulting | carefully throwing away opportunities, an
SysAdmin & Programming | interesting coincidental parallel.
her...@iesd.auc.dk | - Guy L. Steele Jr.
Leslie Mikesell
>I have some problems with Omen Technology's creative redefinition of "non-
>commercial use" in their shareware version of the zmodem host-side programs,
>but the actual terms of that license are legal and supportable.
The terms may be legal, but I don't see how anyone can support them at a
dialup site since they demand that you know what is running on the other end of
the line. One machine here has close to 1000 entries in /etc/passwd.
Rather than calling everyone up and asking if they happen to use an Omen
product, I think I'll keep running the old klunky version.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Mike McCarty
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
[stuff deleted]
)>Lrz/Lsz is a cosmetically modified zmodem/ymodem/xmodem package built from the
)>public-domain version of Chuck Forsberg's rzsz package. This package contains
)>NO code from later releases of rzsz which would preclude it from being released
)>under the GPL.
)>
)>Lrz/Lsz was created to provide a working GNU copylefted zmodem solution for
)>the Debian GNU/Linux distribution although it will work for any Linux
)>system.
)>
)>Please note that credit should be given to Chuck Forsberg (rzsz) and Stephen
)>Satchell/Satchell Evaluations (crc routines) for this package, any
)>modifications by myself were minor and merely introduced to better mesh rzsz
)>with the standard Linux communications programs.
)>
[stuff deleted]
)I don't see any problem with this lrz/lsz package based on the
)public domain rz/sz code. I presume "cosmetically changed"
)means the user interface has been modified to better suit his
)tastes. As far as I know he has the right to add value to the
)PD rz/sz and do with the result what he wishes. He does not
)appear to be misrepresenting the derivation of the work.
Hmmm. When a copyright or patent is put in the public domain, that does
not mean that there is no copyright or patent. It means that the public
owns the copyright or patent. It does EMPHATICALLY NOT mean that a
person can do what he wants to do with the material in the public
domain. That's why the GNU free software foundation goes to such lengths
to ensure that people can do what they want (except make money, I guess)
off of their "copylefted" software. They can't just put the copyright in
the public domain, because it would not do what they want.
This appears to me to be a blatant violation of copyright to me.
But I'm not a lawyer.
Mike
----
char *p="char *p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Chang K Yoon
[stuff deleted]
>
>)I don't see any problem with this lrz/lsz package based on the
>)public domain rz/sz code. I presume "cosmetically changed"
>)means the user interface has been modified to better suit his
>)tastes. As far as I know he has the right to add value to the
>)PD rz/sz and do with the result what he wishes. He does not
>)appear to be misrepresenting the derivation of the work.
>
>Hmmm. When a copyright or patent is put in the public domain, that does
>not mean that there is no copyright or patent. It means that the public
>owns the copyright or patent.
Actually, when a copyright or patent is put in the public domain, there
IS no copyright any longer. The item that is placed in the public domain
truely means that it was placed in the public domain. You, me, or whoever
else wants to can do anything to it including making modifications and
then copyrighting the result.
>It does EMPHATICALLY NOT mean that a
>person can do what he wants to do with the material in the public
>domain.
I >ALMOST< completely disagree with this. There are a few restrictions,
of which the primary one is that you can't take a public domain item and
then attempt to copyright it.
>That's why the GNU free software foundation goes to such lengths
>to ensure that people can do what they want (except make money, I guess)
>off of their "copylefted" software. They can't just put the copyright in
>the public domain, because it would not do what they want.
Yes, this is true. However, the GNU FSF's "copylefted" statement is
actually talking about a copyright that gives you freedom to do anything
with the code, binaries, etc., except make money. I'd quote from the GNU
Public License, but unfortunately, I can't figure out how to put this
editor in the background. ^Z doesn't work. :(
>
>This appears to me to be a blatant violation of copyright to me.
>
Nope. Please see above statements.
>But I'm not a lawyer.
It's Ok. I'm not either. :)
Chang
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chang Yoon | cy...@utdallas.edu -OR- |
| Center for Space Sciences - UT Dallas | cy...@utd500.utdallas.edu |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter da Silva
Andrew Valencia <van...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Yes, but I went wading through the source hoping to find any other sign of
> copying, and failed. If any of the C source had been duplicated as
> clumsily, I would've expected to have found it. Instead, the structure, way
> of handling cancels, timeouts, etc. all look substantially different.
Supposedly he used a document in the public domain called "zmodem.doc" to
implement the program. The zmodem.h file is based on that document. If that's
the case the reason for the similarity to the Omen code is obvious, and quite
benign.
Peter da Silva
> The terms may be legal, but I don't see how anyone can support them at a
> dialup site since they demand that you know what is running on the other
> end of the line.
Certainly. It's the most bizarre definition of "non-commercial" that I've
seen and I'm also sticking to the old version.
hamilton on BIX
>Hmmm. When a copyright or patent is put in the public domain, that does
>not mean that there is no copyright or patent. It means that the public
>owns the copyright or patent. It does EMPHATICALLY NOT mean that a
>person can do what he wants to do with the material in the public
>domain. That's why the GNU free software foundation goes to such lengths
>to ensure that people can do what they want (except make money, I guess)
>off of their "copylefted" software. They can't just put the copyright in
>the public domain, because it would not do what they want.
>This appears to me to be a blatant violation of copyright to me.
>But I'm not a lawyer.
I think you should talk to one. Whatever is in the public domain
may be used by anyone for any otherwise legal purpose. That includes
publishing it for profit.
The reason the FSF uses a copyleft is because that last part (publishing
for profit) is not acceptable to them.
Regards,
Doug Hamilton KD1UJ hami...@bix.com Ph 508-358-5715
Hamilton Laboratories, 13 Old Farm Road, Wayland, MA 01778-3117, USA
Bill Pemberton
>In article <30l4qj$l...@chuckwalla.cs.arizona.edu>,
>Gene Kim <gk...@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>> Could you elaborate about what you find objectionable? Were the
>> zm authors to simply replace their zmodem.h file with one from an old
>> rzsz package, would your qualms about copyright violations go away?
>
>No.
>
>They have established a reasonable suspicion that the whole package is
>copied, by using a clumsily disguised zmodem.h file. What else have they
>"borrowed"?
I disagree, the header file doesn't create reasonable suspicion of anything.
If the only example is that the #defines are similar, that doesn't tell me a
thing. The defines MUST be similar for the silly thing to work, it's part
of the protocol!
You know, there is a lot of code out there with:
#define TRUE 1
#define FALSE 0
Are they all copyright violations of the first one that came up with this?
Furthermore, look at the code. I haven't dug deep into it, but on a casual
look they are different. For example, you can actually read the code to zmrx.
Also, if they copied the code, why didn't they copy all of it? zmrx omits a
few things like the handling of ZSINIT. If you're going go copy, why leave
out major functionality?
--
Bill
James Michael Chacon
>jmcc...@spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) writes:
>I think you should talk to one. Whatever is in the public domain
>may be used by anyone for any otherwise legal purpose. That includes
>publishing it for profit.
>The reason the FSF uses a copyleft is because that last part (publishing
>for profit) is not acceptable to them.
BZZTT...Wrong.
The FSF's copyleft never says *anywhere* in it you can't sell copylefted
software. It just says you also have to give access to the source as well.
There's nothing stopping me from taking gcc and advertising it (with source)
for $500. If someone wants to pay me for it, then that's their problem.
By your logic, companies like Cygnus and Lucid can't exist (which they do).
These places sell Copylefted software (and maintaince on it) for a living.
I think you need to go read the copyleft again.
James
Jim Balter
Chang K Yoon <cy...@utdallas.edu> wrote:
>Yes, this is true. However, the GNU FSF's "copylefted" statement is
>actually talking about a copyright that gives you freedom to do anything
>with the code, binaries, etc., except make money.
Since when does the GNU copyleft forbid you from making money?
You can charge for copylefted software, but you can't horde it.
That may make it less likely that people will pay you money for it,
but it isn't disallowed.
--
<J Q B>
Peter da Silva
Bill Pemberton <wf...@tigger.itc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> If the only example is that the #defines are similar, that doesn't tell me a
> thing. The defines MUST be similar for the silly thing to work, it's part
> of the protocol!
Leaving aside the likelihood that the defines were copied from a paper, the
comments and the *names* of the symbols were very close, too. I wish someone
would post the zmodem.doc file and clear this whole thing up.
Peter da Silva
> Since when does the GNU copyleft forbid you from making money?
> You can charge for copylefted software, but you can't horde it.
> That may make it less likely that people will pay you money for it,
> but it isn't disallowed.
That reminds me an awful lot of the Administration's claim that Clipper
and the export ban don't *prevent* you from implementing a different
scheme. You can't sell it overseas, or to the government, or to people
who want to talk to the government... but they're not actually *forbidding*
non-escrowed encryption.
Jon Gefaell
Mike McCarty <jmcc...@spd.dsccc.com> wrote:
>
>Hmmm. When a copyright or patent is put in the public domain, that does
>not mean that there is no copyright or patent. It means that the public
>owns the copyright or patent. It does EMPHATICALLY NOT mean that a
>person can do what he wants to do with the material in the public
>domain. That's why the GNU free software foundation goes to such lengths
>to ensure that people can do what they want (except make money, I guess)
>off of their "copylefted" software. They can't just put the copyright in
>the public domain, because it would not do what they want.
>
>This appears to me to be a blatant violation of copyright to me.
>
>But I'm not a lawyer.
Neither do you understand the terms 'copyright' and 'public domain' and
I'll wager you've no idea what the GPL is either, since you couldn't
possibly understand the latter and not understand the former.
--
http://Hopper.ITC.Virginia.EDU/~jeg7e/ - rec.motorcycles, soc.motss, rec.guns
_____________________________________________________________________________
\ \ / Jon Gefaell, Computer Systems Engineer | Amateur Radio, KD4CQY
\/\/ (title here), Monticello Area Virtual Village | -Will chmod for Food-
\/ The University of Virginia, Charlottesville | Hac...@Virginia.EDU
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DoD #1439 '82 CB900F "The Turing Machine" - B4 t+ w++ dc g++ k+ s+ m r p++
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>In article <id.FDF...@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>>In article <30l4qj$l...@chuckwalla.cs.arizona.edu>,
>>Gene Kim <gk...@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>>> Could you elaborate about what you find objectionable? Were the
>>> zm authors to simply replace their zmodem.h file with one from an old
>>> rzsz package, would your qualms about copyright violations go away?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>They have established a reasonable suspicion that the whole package is
>>copied, by using a clumsily disguised zmodem.h file. What else have they
>>"borrowed"?
>
>I disagree, the header file doesn't create reasonable suspicion of anything.
>If the only example is that the #defines are similar, that doesn't tell me a
>thing. The defines MUST be similar for the silly thing to work, it's part
>of the protocol!
By the same logic, there's nothing wrong with armed robbery compared to
unarmed robbery. You MUST use guns for the silly heist to work reliably!
They could have used a public domain version of zmodem.h without any
difficulty whatsoever interoperating with Omen Technology Products.
>
>You know, there is a lot of code out there with:
>
>#define TRUE 1
>#define FALSE 0
>
>
>Are they all copyright violations of the first one that came up with this?
I'm not complaining about their cpying of "#define SOH 1" from rz/sz
despite the fact their code never uses it.
I'm complaining about what they've copied from the Copyrighted
zmodem.h. The following makes the plagiarism clear:
rz> /*
rz> * Z M O D E M . H Manifest constants for ZMODEM
rz> * application to application file transfer protocol
rz> * Copyright 1993 Omen Technology Inc All Rights Reserved
rz> */
zm> /*
zm> * zmodem.h
zm> * zmodem constants
zm> * (C) Mattheij Computer Service 1994
zm> */
Obviously Mattheij isn't too bright on copyright basics. The (C) does not
have legal significance. Omen's "All Rights Reserved" does.
rz> #define ZMAXHLEN 16 /* Max header information length NEVER CHANGE */
zm> #define ZMAXHLEN 0x10 /* maximum header information length */
rz> #define ZMAXSPLEN 1024 /* Max subpacket length NEVER CHANGE */
zm> #define ZMAXSPLEN 0x400 /* maximum subpacket length */
rz> #define CANVHDR 01 /* Variable headers OK */
zm> #define ZF1_CANVHDR 0x01 /* Variable headers OK */
rz> #define ZMCHNG 8 /* Change filename if destination exists */
zm> #define ZF1_ZMCHNG 8 /* Change filename if destination exists */
>Furthermore, look at the code. I haven't dug deep into it, but on a casual
>look they are different. For example, you can actually read the code to zmrx.
rz/sz would be easier to read if it didn't have a zillion #ifdefs and special
cases to support the wide variety of platforms it supports. You should have
seen it before I removed the VMS and GEnie support from rz/sz 3.xx!
>Also, if they copied the code, why didn't they copy all of it? zmrx omits a
>few things like the handling of ZSINIT. If you're going go copy, why leave
>out major functionality?
Because it's a lousy, lazy copy that was clumsily hacked in in
attempt to disguise the plagiarism. That it's a piece of poorly
hacked compost does not excuse plagiarism and copyright
infringement.
It's obvious they did their code massaging with a guilty
conscience. They didn't have to recode the rz/sz zsendline()
into tx() et al because the zsendline routine is unchanged from
the PD versions. Their version is slower. It doesn't meet the
protocol definition beacause they made a mistake when they
attempted to hide the fact thet they'd copied zsendline()
instead of independently developing code.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>In article <CtCEy...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
>Bill Pemberton <wf...@tigger.itc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>> If the only example is that the #defines are similar, that doesn't tell me a
>> thing. The defines MUST be similar for the silly thing to work, it's part
>> of the protocol!
>
>Leaving aside the likelihood that the defines were copied from a paper, the
>comments and the *names* of the symbols were very close, too. I wish someone
>would post the zmodem.doc file and clear this whole thing up.
Zmodem.doc is a bit long to post in its entirety, but it contains none of
the plagiarized items I've been complaining about.
The ZMODEM Inter Application File Transfer Protocol
Chuck Forsberg
Omen Technology Inc
A overview of this document is available as ZMODEM.OV
(in ZMDMOV.ARC)
This file may be redistributed without restriction provided the text is
not altered.
Please distribute as widely as possible.
Omen Technology Incorporated
The High Reliability Software
17505-V Northwest Sauvie Island Road
Portland Oregon 97231
VOICE: 503-621-3406 :VOICE
Modem: 503-621-3746 Speed 1200,2400,19200(Telebit PEP)
Compuserve:70007,2304 GEnie:CAF
UUCP: ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Chapter 0 Rev June-24-88 Typeset 6-24-88 1
Gregory Neil Shapiro
rzsz is a licensed product only freely useable if used with Omen Systems or
you must pay for it.
So I don't have to worry about the battle over zm and the licensing charges
for rzsz, is there a zmodem implementation for Unix that is freely
available or doesn't have the tight restrictions on usage rzsz does? This
is for about 130 DECstations in a higher education environment.
I can't see paying money for students to download homework/ftp'ed files
from the system using rzsz and I don't want the school to be in legal
jeopardy by using zm which may be violating a copyright.
Is there any zmodem safe ground?
Paul Gilmartin
: So I don't have to worry about the battle over zm and the licensing charges
: for rzsz, is there a zmodem implementation for Unix that is freely
: available or doesn't have the tight restrictions on usage rzsz does? This
Certainly. Chuck Forsberg referred in recent postings to "public domain"
zmodem. This is any release about 1.36 (08-31-87) or earlier, which many
sites still carry. For example:
Host ftp.uu.net
Location: /networking/terms
FILE -rw-r--r-- 59565 Jul 2 1992 zmodem.tar.Z
Host rascal.ics.utexas.edu
Location: /misc/unix
FILE -rw-r--r-- 56861 Mar 28 1989 zmodem.tar.Z
The code is robust and effective, IMHO.
-- gil
Paul A Vixie
See gatekeeper.dec.com:~ftp/pub/usenet/comp.sources.unix/volume12/zmodem/*
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
There are a number of older rz/sz versions floating around up to 2.03
which are public domain. The README file in rz/sz 3.xx mentions this.
Unlike "KermitWare", the PD versions of rz/sz will remain public domain.
Omen provides the "ZMODEM Developer's Collection" with the
latest royalty free C source code and XMODEM, YMODEM, and ZMODEM
protocol description. These files are kept up to date with
reported bug fixes. They compile to functional Unix and VMS
programs that send and receive files with XMODEM, YMODEM, and
ZMODEM. Many versions of Unix and VMS are supported. These
files are the foundation of most ZMODEM ports including Telix,
Procomm, Qmodem, etc. Interfacing the high level ZMODEM
functions to the user's operating system and communications
primitives is the user's responsibility.
The Developers' Collection is sold on an as-is basis. It is
the customer's responsibility to interface the ZMODEM routines
to his desired communications environment.
Those desiring technical support may call 1-900-737-7836 at
$4.69 per minute. Unregistered callers seeking technical
support will be referred to our 900 number.
The ZMODEM source code in the Developer's Collection does not
include the Copyrighted ZMODEM-90(Tm) extensions (compression,
Mobyturbo(Tm), variable length headers, etc.) which require
sublicensing. Please note that rz/sz beginning with version 3.0
is Copyrighted, as noted in the rz.c, sz.c, and zmr.c source
files. Note that zmr.c is included in both rz and sz and so is
its copyright notice.
Base price is $89.00 (MSDOS 360k 5.25 in, check with order).
Add $5.00 for 3.5 inch. Contact Omen about other formats.
Checks not drawn on U.S. banks must add the bank collection fee
($50 minimum.)
ABA Routing #12300-2011. All wire transfer fees must be paid by
the customer. The Developer's Collection can be ordered by mail.
1994Jul22
94Jul22194946
CtCEys
D8A
DECstations
EDU
Followup
GSHAPIRO
MSDOS
Mobyturbo
Newsgroups
PD
Procomm
Qmodem
README
Telix
Tm
UUCP
VMS
WPI
XMODEM
YMODEM
ZMODEM
Zmodems
acc
alt
asteriod
collison
Robert Bauer
>In article <jqbCtC...@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Since when does the GNU copyleft forbid you from making money?
>> You can charge for copylefted software, but you can't horde it.
>
>and the export ban don't *prevent* you from implementing a different
>scheme. You can't sell it overseas, or to the government, or to people
>who want to talk to the government... but they're not actually *forbidding*
>non-escrowed encryption.
While your clipper analogy sounds good, the fact is that people *are* making
money from software distributed under the GPL. Case in point: Linux cdrom
sellers. All (or nearly all) of the software distributed on these disks is
copylefted.
Whether or not money can be made on alternative encryption schemes--should
the clipper proposal pass--remains to be seen.
Robert
--
_____ _ __ | rba...@ecst.csuchico.edu
_ __|___ | |_ / _|___ | N7TFZ@KE6LW.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
| '_ \ / /| __| ||_ / |------------------------------------------------
| | | |/ / | |_| _/ / |
|_| |_/_/ \__|_|/___| | "Unix wants to be free"
Andy Rabagliati
that go commercial somehow get a raw deal on net.opinion - Phil Katz,
and whoever did ARC got the same flak.
Haven't looked at the code myself - why bother when mathematical analyses
will show up in alt.sources tomorrow :-)
Cheers, Andy.
#! /bin/sh
echo "Read the source, Luke!"
Richard Kooijman
>I'm complaining about what they've copied from the Copyrighted
>zmodem.h. The following makes the plagiarism clear:
>rz> * Z M O D E M . H Manifest constants for ZMODEM
>rz> * application to application file transfer protocol
>rz> * Copyright 1993 Omen Technology Inc All Rights Reserved
>rz> */
>zm> /*
>zm> * zmodem.h
>zm> * zmodem constants
>zm> * (C) Mattheij Computer Service 1994
>zm> */
So they used the wrong zmodem.h . The public domain zmodem.h isn't that
much different I guess.
>>Also, if they copied the code, why didn't they copy all of it? zmrx omits a
>>few things like the handling of ZSINIT. If you're going go copy, why leave
>>out major functionality?
>Because it's a lousy, lazy copy that was clumsily hacked in in
>attempt to disguise the plagiarism. That it's a piece of poorly
>hacked compost does not excuse plagiarism and copyright
>infringement.
You still haven't proven that. Saying that they used the wrong
zmodem.h is still a bit different from saying they copied all your code.
>It's obvious they did their code massaging with a guilty
>conscience. They didn't have to recode the rz/sz zsendline()
>into tx() et al because the zsendline routine is unchanged from
>the PD versions.
So if the zmodem.h was unchanged since the PD version, nobody would have
noticed anything.
>Their version is slower. It doesn't meet the
>protocol definition beacause they made a mistake when they
>attempted to hide the fact thet they'd copied zsendline()
>instead of independently developing code.
I am going to compare the versions for myself.
Richard.
Willard F. Dawson
>Host ftp.uu.net
It's not all that robust and effective on Solaris 2.3, unfortunately.
I'm sure that some signalling has changed, requiring some tweaks...
Benjamin Z. Goldsteen
>Host ftp.uu.net
It is old and doesn't implement a lot of things. On the other hand, I
am not sure what I am supposed to do with the newer code --
licensing-wise.
By the way, somebody wanted the public zmodem doc's. They aren't too
hard to find (I think they are somewhere on wuarchive, for example),
but here is one excerpt:
#define CANCRY 8 /* Receiver can decrypt */
#define CANFDX 01 /* Rx can send and receive true FDX */
#define CANOVIO 02 /* Rx can receive data during disk I/O */
#define CANBRK 04 /* Rx can send a break signal */
#define CANCRY 010 /* Receiver can decrypt */
#define CANLZW 020 /* Receiver can uncompress */
#define CANFC32 040 /* Receiver can use 32 bit Frame Check */
#define ESCCTL 0100 /* Receiver expects ctl chars to be escaped */
#define ESC8 0200 /* Receiver expects 8th bit to be escaped */
#define TESCCTL 0100 /* Transmitter expects ctl chars to be escaped
#define TESC8 0200 /* Transmitter expects 8th bit to be escaped
However, I can't find any other definitions for things like ZACK. I
didn't look very carefully, though.
--
Benjamin Z. Goldsteen
John Navas
> Well, Chuck has some points. And, somehow I think that freeware writers
> that go commercial somehow get a raw deal on net.opinion - Phil Katz,
> and whoever did ARC got the same flak.
In the case of Mr. Katz, it was hardly a "raw deal" -- he got started by
violating the copyright on ARC (name and source code) and got caught. SEA
(the authors of ARC) got "flak" for taking appropriate legal action
against PKware (Phil's company) from free spirits that don't believe in
software copyrights.
--
Best regards,
John
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>c...@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
>
>>I'm complaining about what they've copied from the Copyrighted
>>zmodem.h. The following makes the plagiarism clear:
>
>>rz> * Z M O D E M . H Manifest constants for ZMODEM
>>rz> * application to application file transfer protocol
>>rz> * Copyright 1993 Omen Technology Inc All Rights Reserved
>>rz> */
>>zm> /*
>>zm> * zmodem.h
>>zm> * zmodem constants
>>zm> * (C) Mattheij Computer Service 1994
>>zm> */
>
>So they used the wrong zmodem.h . The public domain zmodem.h isn't that
>much different I guess.
"I guess" ??? Why not learn the facts before posting?
They removed the legal copyright notice in the 3.24 zmodem.h and
substituted their own. If that was an honest mistake they must
have been brain damaged from drug overdose when they did it.
If they had used PD materials I wouldn't be pointing out their
copyright violation.
Garrett Wollman
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>rz> * Z M O D E M . H Manifest constants for ZMODEM
>rz> * application to application file transfer protocol
>rz> * Copyright 1993 Omen Technology Inc All Rights Reserved
>rz> */
>zm> /*
>zm> * zmodem.h
>zm> * zmodem constants
>zm> * (C) Mattheij Computer Service 1994
>zm> */
>
>have legal significance. Omen's "All Rights Reserved" does.
Sorry, Chuck, but you lose. What has legal significance is the Berne
Convention, which says that copyright exists independent of any
notices affixed to the copyrighted work.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ...
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance.
Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people
MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Jeffrey T Berntsen
I wouldn't call what Mr. Katz is getting a raw deal, but possibly just deserts.
Look at the newer archivers out there like ARJ and UC2. They beat PKZIP in
terms of features, reliability, and compression obtained. Phil has just gotten
too commercial for his own good. (When you ignore requests for bug fixes from
the folks who made you #1 in the first place, it's gone too far....)
As far as the SEA legal action goes (yes I _AM_ dragging it up again), they
weren't exactly innocent of lifting other source code themselves. BTW, weren't
you involved in that whole thing, John?
>--
>Best regards,
>John
John Navas
> As far as the SEA legal action goes (yes I _AM_ dragging it up again), they
> weren't exactly innocent of lifting other source code themselves.
SEA did make some use of public domain code, which was entirely legal and
proper. Phil Katz made use of copyrighted SEA code, which was not.
> BTW, weren't
> you involved in that whole thing, John?
Yes. I was the expert for SEA. I testified that I had found evidence of
copyright infringement by PKware. That testimony was uncontroverted.
--
Best regards,
John
Paul A Vixie
>substituted their own. If that was an honest mistake they must
>have been brain damaged from drug overdose when they did it.
No, they didn't. The similarity with 3.24's zmodem.h file came via a
different path.
As moderator of comp.sources.unix I have been evaluating Mr. Forsberg's claims
of copyright violation. My preliminary findings is that he _does_ have cause
for complaint. But zmodem.h isn't the problem.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>In article <1994Jul22.2...@omen.uucp>,
>Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>>rz> /*
>>rz> * Z M O D E M . H Manifest constants for ZMODEM
>>rz> * application to application file transfer protocol
>>rz> * Copyright 1993 Omen Technology Inc All Rights Reserved
>>rz> */
>>zm> /*
>>zm> * zmodem.h
>>zm> * zmodem constants
>>zm> * (C) Mattheij Computer Service 1994
>>zm> */
>>
>>Obviously Mattheij isn't too bright on copyright basics. The (C) does not
>>have legal significance. Omen's "All Rights Reserved" does.
>
>Sorry, Chuck, but you lose. What has legal significance is the Berne
>Convention, which says that copyright exists independent of any
>notices affixed to the copyrighted work.
Sorry, Garrett, you didn't pay attention to my statement. I did not say
the copyright was invalid because it had (C) instead of "All Rights
Reserved". I said the (C) was without legal significance. On the other
hand, "All Rights Reserved" does have significance in some parts of the
world, or at least it used to.
Paul Schauble
>jmcc...@spd.dsccc.com (Mike McCarty) writes:
Exactly. Note well that the GNU software is !!NOT!! in the public domain.
++PLS
Jim Balter
Robert Bauer <rba...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>In article <id.TD...@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <pe...@nmti.com> wrote:
>>> Since when does the GNU copyleft forbid you from making money?
>>> You can charge for copylefted software, but you can't horde it.
>>
>>and the export ban don't *prevent* you from implementing a different
>>scheme. You can't sell it overseas, or to the government, or to people
>>who want to talk to the government... but they're not actually *forbidding*
>>non-escrowed encryption.
>
>money from software distributed under the GPL. Case in point: Linux cdrom
>sellers. All (or nearly all) of the software distributed on these disks is
>copylefted.
>
>Whether or not money can be made on alternative encryption schemes--should
>the clipper proposal pass--remains to be seen.
The analogy sucks because the FSF puts no restrictions on alternative compilers,
alternative operating systems, alternative utilities, etc. FSF and Richard
Stallman may have a hidden agenda to prevent people from making money selling
*any* software, and the GPL may be a tool in this nefarious scheme, but it
*does not* operate in the way that the quoted restrictions operate, and
mentioning them is pure obfuscation.
The government will flood the market with inferior encryption, and will use
its power to prevent you from providing or using better encryption.
FSF floods the market with superior tools, and forbids you from restricting
the distribution of any improvement on those tools. It does not prevent
you from providing or using better tools.
Not at all the same thing.
--
<J Q B>
14033-R.SCHREIBMAIER(MT5655)1223MT
> In article <GSHAPIRO.94...@monkeyboy.WPI.EDU> gsha...@monkeyboy.WPI.EDU (Gregory Neil Shapiro) writes:
>>Is there any zmodem safe ground?
>
> There are a number of older rz/sz versions floating around up to 2.03
> which are public domain. The README file in rz/sz 3.xx mentions this.
I am curious to know precisely what the cutoff is. I had heard that
it was "somewhere around April 1988." However, I saw a zmodem package
on oak.oakland.edu that had the "pd" letters attached to the name.
It turns out to be SZ 2.12 of 5/29/88 and RZ 2.03 of 5/17/88. Is this
really public domain or did this one go beyond the cutoff date?
If it did go beyond the cutoff date, how does one find the latest
public domain version?
--
----------------------------------------------------
Bob Schreibmaier K2PH | UUCP: ...!att!mtdcr!bob
AT&T Bell Laboratories | Internet: b...@mtdcr.att.com
Middletown, N.J. 07748 | ICBM: 40o21'N, 74o8'W
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>From article <1994Jul23....@omen.UUCP>, by c...@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX):
>> In article <GSHAPIRO.94...@monkeyboy.WPI.EDU> gsha...@monkeyboy.WPI.EDU (Gregory Neil Shapiro) writes:
>>>Is there any zmodem safe ground?
>>
>> There are a number of older rz/sz versions floating around up to 2.03
>> which are public domain. The README file in rz/sz 3.xx mentions this.
>
>I am curious to know precisely what the cutoff is. I had heard that
>it was "somewhere around April 1988." However, I saw a zmodem package
>on oak.oakland.edu that had the "pd" letters attached to the name.
>It turns out to be SZ 2.12 of 5/29/88 and RZ 2.03 of 5/17/88. Is this
>really public domain or did this one go beyond the cutoff date?
An early internal, non public domain rz/sz contained the zmr.c
file with the notation that it contained Omen Technology trade
secrets. That version did not include variable length headers.
When rz/sz with RLE was introduced in April 1989 it included
variable length headers and a strongly worded copyright notice.
From the April 1989 rz/sz archive README file:
"New for April 1989: ZMODEM compression and other compatible
extensions have been added to the rz and sz programs. Please
read the comments in the rz.c and sz.c source code for
licensing information for commercial use.
Previous versions of rz and sz (April 1988) remain Public Domain."
>
>If it did go beyond the cutoff date, how does one find the latest
>public domain version?
The current royalty free rz/sz is 2.03/2.16. This includes a
few bugfixes beyond the last pd released to Usenet. These files
are in the ZMODEM Developer's Collection ($89.00).
Peter da Silva
Robert Bauer <rba...@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
> While your clipper analogy sounds good, the fact is that people *are* making
> money from software distributed under the GPL.
I know there are. No analogy is 100%. What I'm getting at is that the
conflict between the declared intent and the underlying goals is similar
in both cases.
> Whether or not money can be made on alternative encryption schemes--should
> the clipper proposal pass--remains to be seen.
I'm sure there will be ways of doing it. After all, people are already selling
BSD systems on CDROM even though you have to get the DES encryption code for
/etc/passwd elsewhere. The DES ban, foolish as it is, hasn't done it.
If I were Microsoft, trying to sell Secure Mail outside the US, I'd license
a third-party implementation of PGP from someone in India or Taiwan and
have them cut the disks in Australia.
Peter da Silva
> The government will flood the market with inferior encryption, and will use
> its power to prevent you from providing or using better encryption.
> FSF floods the market with superior tools, and forbids you from restricting
> the distribution of any improvement on those tools. It does not prevent
> you from providing or using better tools.
Of course. The government is the government, and the real consequences from
any action they initiate are guaranteed to be worse than anything any
individual without the privilege of initiating force can do.
That's a given in *any* situation.
Peter da Silva
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
> >In article <CtCEy...@murdoch.acc.virginia.edu>,
> >Bill Pemberton <wf...@tigger.itc.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> >> If the only example is that the #defines are similar, that doesn't tell me a
> >> thing. The defines MUST be similar for the silly thing to work, it's part
> >> of the protocol!
> >Leaving aside the likelihood that the defines were copied from a paper, the
> >comments and the *names* of the symbols were very close, too. I wish someone
> >would post the zmodem.doc file and clear this whole thing up.
> Zmodem.doc is a bit long to post in its entirety, but it contains none of
> the plagiarized items I've been complaining about.
So how about posting a pointer to it, perhaps an URL?
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>
>> >Leaving aside the likelihood that the defines were copied from a paper, the
>> >comments and the *names* of the symbols were very close, too. I wish someone
>> >would post the zmodem.doc file and clear this whole thing up.
>
>> Zmodem.doc is a bit long to post in its entirety, but it contains none of
>> the plagiarized items I've been complaining about.
>
>So how about posting a pointer to it, perhaps an URL?
oak.oakland.edu pub/misc/protocols/zmodem8.doc Regular text file.
Jim Balter
>In article <jqbCtF...@netcom.com>, Jim Balter <j...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> The government will flood the market with inferior encryption, and will use
>> its power to prevent you from providing or using better encryption.
>
>> FSF floods the market with superior tools, and forbids you from restricting
>> the distribution of any improvement on those tools. It does not prevent
>> you from providing or using better tools.
>
>Of course. The government is the government, and the real consequences from
>any action they initiate are guaranteed to be worse than anything any
>individual without the privilege of initiating force can do.
>
>That's a given in *any* situation.
An interesting form of argument.
Aaron: "Bob tells me that he rejected Charlie's advances."
Doug: "That reminds me of how the state of Georgia will throw you in jail
for sodomy."
Aaron: "Wait, that not the same! It *Bob's* body!"
Doug: "Of course it's not the same. The government is the government, and
the real consequences from any action they initiate are guaranteed
to be worse than anything any individual without the privilege of
initiating force can do. That's a given in *any* situation."
--
<J Q B>
R. Stewart Ellis
>p...@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes:
>>Gregory Neil Shapiro (gsha...@monkeyboy.WPI.EDU) wrote:
[...]
>>
>>The code is robust and effective, IMHO.
>It's not all that robust and effective on Solaris 2.3, unfortunately.
>I'm sure that some signalling has changed, requiring some tweaks...
Many apps that depend on sgtty semantics do not properly handle the streams
because of some screwups in the ioctl handling. I do not use zmodem from
2.3 anymore, but I believe things were better if zmodem is compiled in the
Sys5 universe.
--
R.Stewart(Stew) Ellis, Assoc.Prof., (Off)313-762-9765 ___________________
Humanities & Social Science, GMI Eng.& Mgmt. Inst. / _____ ______
Flint, MI 48504 el...@nova.gmi.edu / / / / / /
Gopher,chimera,nn,tin,jove,modems, free code is best!/________/ / / / /
Rob Healey
Gregory Neil Shapiro <gsha...@monkeyboy.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>I can't see paying money for students to download homework/ftp'ed files
>from the system using rzsz and I don't want the school to be in legal
>jeopardy by using zm which may be violating a copyright.
>
sliding windows should do the trick. Source and binarys are
on ftp: kermit.columbia.edu I believe. Kermit provides decent
emulation on PC's and Mac's so it should make a usable replacement
for any comm package a student would be using.
-Rob
Michael C. Loewen
the alt.sources groups from their Newsgroups header? Or change it to
alt.sources.d?
--
Mike Loewen The Centre Programmers Unit BBS
mlo...@cpumagic.scol.pa.us (814) 353-0566 V.32bis/HST
Peter da Silva
he can pass laws discouraging the use of strong crypto (though for political
reason's he hasn't actually done that).
RMS's stated goal is to eliminate the sale of software as a product. Since
he is not the government he has to use more subtle means to achieve this
goal. But other than the fact that the government has the threat of force
to back up their actions the two strategies are quite similar: you establish
a standard (the FSF is trying to do this by making GCC so much better than
anyone else's compiler nobody considers using anything else, the government
is trying to do this by putting barriers in the way of competing schemes)
and you then use legal means to coerce people into supporting your goal (G++
is free, but if you link your code with the G++ library you have to put it
under the GPL if you want to distribute it, Clipper is exportable, but if
you want to use it you have to be wiretap-friendly).
In both cases there are ways around it. You can not use GCC, or you can not
use their libraries. You can assemble your Clipper-free phones in Taiwan and
only *import* them to the country (so Clipper exports jobs).
It's *not* an exact analogy. It is, however, comparable.
The whole GPL thing bothers me in a lot of ways. I *do* think software should
be delivered with the source code. I'm 90% in agreement with the FSF in just
about every front. I've just got this 10% that really burns. There's too much
good software out there that just wouldn't exist if there wasn't a commercial
software market. Ironically, I personally use very little of it... most of it
runs on operating systems that are foul and disgusting... I don't even sell
software: I do tech support... the FSF software makes my job easier.
But there's all these people out there who need software designed for novices.
It takes a lot of work to make software user-friendly. People aren't going
to do that if they're not going to get a lot of money for it, because it's
not fun. It's not satisfying. Hackers don't like doing it. But it's gotta be
done, and the only way I can see to pay for it is to charge the user money
and threaten him with the law if he gives it to his friends.
So, *yes*, force people to sell the source code with their packages. That's
a good goal! But by forcing people to give up the right to prevent piracy of
their code to use their tools is just counterproductive. I means that the
software I *most* want the source to... the packages that my users have on
their desks... is NEVER going to be available.
Back to the point... the FSF is doing almost what I thought they should be
doing. The problem, I thought, was just that they were going too far with
it. But no...
Now the government is doing the same thing. Heavy handed, as always, but
it's still attempting to capture market share and use it for political ends.
And it bothers me that I haven't opposed the tactic itself... just the goals
the tactic has been used for. I've been naive, thinking that only the good
guys (or at least the benign guys) are using the market for political goals.
And because they're the government, what they're doing is *nasty*.
John Navas
> Clinton's stated goal is to prevent strong crypto. Since he's the government
> he can pass laws discouraging the use of strong crypto (though for political
> reason's he hasn't actually done that).
...
> Now the government is doing the same thing. Heavy handed, as always, but
> it's still attempting to capture market share and use it for political ends.
> And it bothers me that I haven't opposed the tactic itself... just the goals
> the tactic has been used for. I've been naive, thinking that only the good
> guys (or at least the benign guys) are using the market for political goals.
> And because they're the government, what they're doing is *nasty*.
The good news is that in the long run such government tactics inevitably
fail.
--
Best regards,
John
System Administrator
: he can pass laws discouraging the use of strong crypto (though for political
: reason's he hasn't actually done that).
I'm against Clipper too, and I was against it before I ever heard of Bill
Clinton.
--
Greg Shenaut -- gksh...@ucdavis.edu
Matthew Hannigan
>copied, by using a clumsily disguised zmodem.h file. What else have they
>"borrowed"?
Are you sure that they "clumsily disguised" it, and not merely
took out bits that they didn't use, thinking that it was perfectly
OK to use a .h file? (Whether it is actually OK or not)
--
-Matt Hannigan
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
Yes, clumsily disguised. Compare zsendline() in sz (public
domain vsn) to the clumsily (and incorrectly!) rewritten tx() in
"zmtx/zmrx, zmodem implementation build from scratch".
With my zsendline, 75% of transmitted characters are handled
relatively efficiently with a bit test, a store, and macro
driven buffering (putchar()).
With this idiot's tx() we must first scan the list of special
characters (the switch statement). There are 9 entries in this
list so the compiler will usually generate a list search. The
alternative table driven code is unlikely since the list is
rather sparse (9 entries, size of 136) which would unreasonably
waste memory. After the list search, zm checks for a control
character, then calls a separate subroutine to update the
lastsent variable. This extra level of subroutine nesting on
every character adds even more overhead compared to zdendline().
Furthermore, this idiot always does an AND when setting
lastsent, despite the fact that lastsent is used only 1 per cent
of the time. Because lastsent is used only 1% of the time (when
a CR is sent) it is more efficient to mask lastsent only in the
rare cases where it is referenced instead of masking it once per
every character.
In his rush to disguise his plagiarizing of rz/sz, Mattheij
managed to mangle the logic that protects the Telenet PC Pursuit
CR@CR sequence. The ZMODEM spec calls for this sequence to be
protected, which zsendline does by escaping any CR that comes
after an @ character. Mattheij's stupid tx() only does this when
all control characters are escaped. If all control characters
are escaped there's no point checking for a CR preceded by the @
character, is there Jacques?
Telenet discontinued PC Pursuit earlier this year, so it would
seem logical that someone with the expertise Mattheij claims
to have would cleanly remove the PC Pursuit specific support
while he was redefining the ZMODEM protocol. Instead, he
just broke it in the process of covering up his plagiarism.
Note how cleverly Mattheij improved the clarity of zmodem.h
by changing decimal constants to hex when he substituted his
copyright notice for the legitimate Omen Technology copyright:
#define ZMAXHLEN 16 /* Max header information length NEVER CHANGE */
#define ZMAXHLEN 0x10 /* maximum header information length */
#define xsendline(c) putchar(c)
/*
* Send character c with ZMODEM escape sequence encoding.
* Escape XON, XOFF. Escape CR following @ (Telenet net escape)
*/
zsendline(c)
{
/* Quick check for non control characters */
if (c & 0140)
xsendline(lastsent = c);
else {
switch (c &= 0377) {
case ZDLE:
xsendline(ZDLE);
xsendline (lastsent = (c ^= 0100));
break;
case 015:
case 0215:
if (!Zctlesc && (lastsent & 0177) != '@')
goto sendit;
/* **** FALL THRU TO **** */
case 020:
case 021:
case 023:
case 0220:
case 0221:
case 0223:
xsendline(ZDLE);
c ^= 0100;
sendit:
xsendline(lastsent = c);
break;
default:
if (Zctlesc && ! (c & 0140)) {
xsendline(ZDLE);
c ^= 0100;
}
xsendline(lastsent = c);
}
}
}
void
tx_raw(int c)
{
#ifdef DEBUG
if (raw_trace) {
fprintf(stderr,"%02x ",c);
}
#endif
last_sent = c & 0x7f;
putchar(c);
}
/*
* transmit a character ZDLE escaped
*/
void
tx_esc(int c)
{
tx_raw(ZDLE);
/*
* exclusive or; not an or so ZDLE becomes ZDLEE
*/
tx_raw(c ^ 0x40);
}
/*
* transmit a character; ZDLE escaping if appropriate
*/
void
tx(unsigned char c)
{
switch (c) {
case ZDLE:
tx_esc(c);
return;
break;
case 0x8d:
case 0x0d:
if (escape_all_control_characters && last_sent == '@') {
tx_esc(c);
return;
}
break;
case 0x10:
case 0x90:
case 0x11:
case 0x91:
case 0x13:
case 0x93:
tx_esc(c);
return;
break;
default:
if (escape_all_control_characters && (c & 0x60) == 0) {
tx_esc(c);
return;
}
break;
}
/*
* anything that ends here is so normal we might as well transmit it.
*/
tx_raw((int) c);
Anthony D'Atri
> sliding windows
And non-quoted 8-bit chars.
> on ftp: kermit.columbia.edu I believe. Kermit provides decent
> emulation on PC's and Mac's so it should make a usable replacement
> for any comm package a student would be using.
It also has the advantage that at least one *working* implementation exists
for originating calls on Unix machines.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
Oh what words come from the keyboards of babes!
Professional-YAM and a number of other packages supporting ZMODEM have
been avaiable for Unix for years.
Olaf Klein
Stop posting this rubbish in alt.sources. IF you want to post, post
sources...
Olaf
--
Es gibt nicht einmal einen logischen Grund, am Leben zu bleiben. Aber der
Instinkt sagt es uns, und daher wollen wir es. [Poul Anderson]
Roger Masse
I'm looking for information on ATM switches as available or planned by
Cabletron, Fore, Newbridge, and Synoptics. Any users out there care to
comment (or point me to another news group) either good or bad about these?
Neither Cabletron nor Synoptics has a product yet, although they have
promised same. Fore and Newbridge have product and it is in the
field. Even for the first two, I'd be interest in user comments re whether
you believe the manufacturers are going to deliver what they say.
Regards,
Roger E. Masse, Systems Engineer
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive, Suite 100
Reston, Virginia, USA 22091
Internet: rma...@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
14033-R.SCHREIBMAIER(MT5655)1223MT
> In article <1994Jul25....@omen.uucp>,
> Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>>
>
> different versions of rz/sz and zmodem. Where could I find rz 2.03
> and sz 2.16?
> I've picked up 2 different distributions of rz/sz or zmodem so far,
> and neither one had any version control numbers that I can find. How
> can I tell if the versions that I have are 2.03 and 2.16?
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
printf("\nI don't know about sz 2.16, but rz 2.03 and sz 2.12\n");
printf("may be picked up from oak.oakland.edu in /pub/misc/unix.\n");
printf("Just look for rzsz-pd.zip. Enjoy.\n");
printf("\nBy the way, you can grep for VERSION in rz.c and sz.c to\n");
printf("find what version of zmodem you have.\n\n");
Jim Ertle
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>The current royalty free rz/sz is 2.03/2.16. This includes a
>
Hmmm... I've used archie to look for this, but I've found many
different versions of rz/sz and zmodem. Where could I find rz 2.03
and sz 2.16?
I've picked up 2 different distributions of rz/sz or zmodem so far,
and neither one had any version control numbers that I can find. How
can I tell if the versions that I have are 2.03 and 2.16?
Thanks!!
--
James A. Ertle |Life moves pretty fast ...
er...@emba.uvm.edu |If you don't look around once in
UVM's EMBA Computer Facility |a while, you'll miss it.
Burlington, Vt. USA | - Ferris
Pat Myrto
>In article <CtL1K...@txnews.amd.com> a...@lovecraft.amd.com (Anthony D'Atri) writes:
>>> If this is an issue than kermit with good sized packets and
>>> sliding windows
>>
>>And non-quoted 8-bit chars.
>>
>>> on ftp: kermit.columbia.edu I believe. Kermit provides decent
>>> emulation on PC's and Mac's so it should make a usable replacement
>>> for any comm package a student would be using.
>>
>>It also has the advantage that at least one *working* implementation exists
>>for originating calls on Unix machines.
>
>Oh what words come from the keyboards of babes!
>
>Professional-YAM and a number of other packages supporting ZMODEM have
>been avaiable for Unix for years.
I believe the difference is that one is free, easily available (kermit),
the other, while nice as an xfer protocol, has a license that effectively
makes it unusable unless you want to shell out a lot of $$$. Things
like defining 'commercial use' as someone downloading a file from a host
that happens to charge a fee for accounts is just a ploy for saying
"you can't use zmodem for anything but sending to yourself" (even though
the protocol is supposed to be public domain), and trying to prevent
useful versions from being written by nitpicking on the code...
Another problem: Pro-YAM is available as BINARY ONLY (unless things
have changed), and was never available for my first platform years ago,
even though requests were sent, which were unanswered. This creates an
unwanted problem for a lot of people (Omen doesn't have quite the stake
that, say, Sun has in ensuring no 'unfriendly' code is present, so them
and Sun selling binary only aint the same thing), and carries a lot of
unnecessary baggage for situations where one only wishes to use some
other comm program besides Pro-YAM, or only wants to use the rz/sz part.
Pro-YAM is kinda big to load just to get zmodem. Be much better to have
a full-featured zmodem, WITH SOURCE, available for a reasonable price,
not 3 figures to just get a file xfer protocol. Face it, many users
are casual users and don't want to fight with a phone.t file to add
another site to dial, and much usage doesn't use the comm portion at
all.
Make source available, and without charging 3 arms and a leg, and you
will probably have more takers. That is what turned me off - absence
of source, and this big ... thing ... many times the size of an older
rzsz, just to get zmodem for one's preferred comm program that is
available for FREE, and with source. Also, the newer versions of rzsz
are deliberately crippled to deny that use, presumably to force people
to buy the 80 percent of unwanted baggage in Pro-YAM, *WITHOUT* source,
just to get zmodem). The real effect is to force one to purchase a
binary-only version of a comm program one does not want, just to get a
zmodem that will work with one's EXISTING (and preferred) comm program.
Or hack on an older one, and live without the features that are supposed
to make ZMODEM so great.
Not a good deal, IMO.
Its your code, you do what you want, but that is why one may be more
apt to find kermit than zmodem on a randomly picked site. Better to
use a slow protocol that is THERE, that will get the file xferred, than
to use a faster one that is unavailable because of what I (and I suspect
others, as well) consider unreasonable restrictions.
--
pat@rwing [If all fails, try: rwing!p...@eskimo.com] Pat Myrto - Seattle WA
"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding
empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers, nationally syndicated advice columnist
and Director at Handgun Control Inc.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>>>It also has the advantage that at least one *working* implementation exists
>>>for originating calls on Unix machines.
>>
>>Oh what words come from the keyboards of babes!
>>
>>Professional-YAM and a number of other packages supporting ZMODEM have
>
>I believe the difference is that one is free, easily available (kermit),
"it is not in the public domain either, and never has been. It is not
"shareware". It is not "freeware". It is copyright by Columbia University."
Kermit News July 1993 Page 1
>the other, while nice as an xfer protocol, has a license that effectively
>makes it unusable unless you want to shell out a lot of $$$. Things
>like defining 'commercial use' as someone downloading a file from a host
>that happens to charge a fee for accounts is just a ploy for saying
>"you can't use zmodem for anything but sending to yourself" (even though
>the protocol is supposed to be public domain), and trying to prevent
>useful versions from being written by nitpicking on the code...
Oh what words still come from the keyboards of babes!
There is no charge for Unix rz/sz when it is used to support
DSZ, GSZ, ZCOMM, Professional-YAM or PowerCom. If Datastorm or
Crosstalk customers wish to send files to/from Unix without
using DSZ or a slow Kermit then rz/sz can be registered for the
Unix machine at a fraction of the unit cost of Procomm.
>Another problem: Pro-YAM is available as BINARY ONLY (unless things
>have changed), and was never available for my first platform years ago,
Professional-YAM has been available under a $400 source license since
1989.
>even though requests were sent, which were unanswered. This creates an
>unwanted problem for a lot of people (Omen doesn't have quite the stake
>that, say, Sun has in ensuring no 'unfriendly' code is present, so them
>and Sun selling binary only aint the same thing), and carries a lot of
>unnecessary baggage for situations where one only wishes to use some
>other comm program besides Pro-YAM, or only wants to use the rz/sz part.
Translation: I've already paid money to Datastorm or Crosstalk, and I
don't feel like paying for rz/sz just to get some use out of my Procomm.
>Pro-YAM is kinda big to load just to get zmodem. Be much better to have
>a full-featured zmodem, WITH SOURCE, available for a reasonable price,
>not 3 figures to just get a file xfer protocol. Face it, many users
>are casual users and don't want to fight with a phone.t file to add
>another site to dial, and much usage doesn't use the comm portion at all.
They can register DSZ and use rz/sz for free. Most of the people reading
this post can easily afford the $20.00 to register DSZ.
>Make source available, and without charging 3 arms and a leg, and you
>will probably have more takers. That is what turned me off - absence
>of source, and this big ... thing ... many times the size of an older
>rzsz, just to get zmodem for one's preferred comm program that is
>available for FREE, and with source. Also, the newer versions of rzsz
>are deliberately crippled to deny that use, presumably to force people
>to buy the 80 percent of unwanted baggage in Pro-YAM, *WITHOUT* source,
>just to get zmodem). The real effect is to force one to purchase a
>binary-only version of a comm program one does not want, just to get a
>zmodem that will work with one's EXISTING (and preferred) comm program.
How many source code versions of Bimodem have we seen?
How many source code versions of Blast have we seen?
How many source code versions of Dart have we seen?
When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
Maybe it's because they've seen the reception I got.
Richard Kooijman
>Yes, clumsily disguised. Compare zsendline() in sz (public
>domain vsn) to the clumsily (and incorrectly!) rewritten tx() in
>"zmtx/zmrx, zmodem implementation build from scratch".
I wanted to wait with posting my findings till I got some feedback
from Paul Vixie who asked me to send them to him as a moderator
of comp.sources.unix.
But since we arrived at the level of name-calling.....
OK, here it goes. Please reply if you got your doubts, remarks,
suggestions, whatever. But keep it nice. I am not connected to
Omen, Chuck, Mattheijs and I speak only for myself.
Richard.
--------------------------------
Hi,
I did some comparisons on the zm and rzsz code and this is what I found:
1. The zmodem.h file is indeed the copyrighted one. But I really
don't care that much about this one. Legally, Mattheijs
did wrong by using this version of the file, but it just
contains some definitions.
2. There are some parts that are similar in coding.
Especially some code that does sending and the calculation
of the CRC in those parts. I have looked into zmodem8.doc
to see of the code was that obvious from the docs, but it
simply isn't.
3. There are also parts that are completely different. Maybe
just redesigns of the original, but I can't say. The
layering of the code is at least very different in those parts.
My estimate is that about 15% of the zm code bears resemblence with
the rzsz code. Note that besides zmodem.h the code is never exactly the
same as rzsz's code (taking simple renaming of variables into account).
I got this number by roughly counting similar lines of code in zmdm.c and
calculating the ratio similar_lines/lines_in_zmdm.c.
Note that this involves only one file and the ratio is determined against
the number of lines in zmdm.c. The ratio similar_lines/lines_in_all_rzsz_code
(not including crc code) is 5%.
I therefore think that zm is not so independent as they claim it to be.
Disclaimers:
Theses number are not exact. Everything here is just my humble opinion.
Now some general remarks.
Did anyone notice this in crctab.c of the rzsz distribution?:
/*
* updcrc macro derived from article Copyright (C) 1986 Stephen Satchell.
* NOTE: First srgument must be in range 0 to 255.
* Second argument is referenced twice.
*
* Programmers may incorporate any or all code into their programs,
* giving proper credit within the source. Publication of the
* source routines is permitted so long as proper credit is given
* to Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations and Chuck Forsberg,
* Omen Technology.
*/
#define updcrc(cp, crc) ( crctab[((crc >> 8) & 255)] ^ (crc << 8) ^ cp)
They copyrighted one (1, uno, een, ein) macro that is based on a
article (which one?!).
This is the single addition to the whole CRC code and they
place it somewhere in between somebody else's code like they make some
contribution to mankind.
In this light I can fully understand this remark in the zm code:
/*
* updcrc macro derived from article Copyright (C) 1986 Stephen Satchell.
* NOTE: First srgument must be in range 0 to 255.
* Second argument is referenced twice.
*
* Programmers may incorporate any or all code into their programs,
* giving proper credit within the source. Publication of the
* source routines is permitted so long as proper credit is given
* to Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
*
* wow ! a whole macro ! lets copyright it.....
*/
But also notice that Chuck Forsberg's name has been cut out.
I justed wanted to show this because personally I think that
programmers that copyright 1 macro on top of somebody else's code
should be banned from the Internet without hesitation.
Richard.
Jeffrey Altman
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>"it is not in the public domain either, and never has been. It is not
>"shareware". It is not "freeware". It is copyright by Columbia University."
> Kermit News July 1993 Page 1
>
C-Kermit for Unix has no licensing fee, the only request is that you go
to your local bookstore and buy a copy of "Using C-Kermit". The fees that
Columbia U. charges are distribution fees and/or the price of a copy of
the above mentioned book or "Using MS-DOS Kermit".
>Oh what words still come from the keyboards of babes!
>
Chuck, let someone associated with Kermit or Columbia U. speak for Kermit.
>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
Kermit was never public domain, however, it is readily available and
neither Columbia U. nor any of the volunteer developers of the Kermit
software products beats up a user because they haven't paid a registration
fee. Kermit people do get upset if someone else tries to distribute
the Kermit sources or binaries for profit without asking permission.
Here is the copyright notice from C-Kermit 5A(190):
/*
Author: Frank da Cruz (f...@columbia.edu, FD...@CUVMA.BITNET),
Columbia University Academic Information Systems, New York City.
Copyright (C) 1985, 1994, Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New
York. The C-Kermit software may not be, in whole or in part, licensed or
sold for profit as a software product itself, nor may it be included in or
distributed with commercial products or otherwise distributed by commercial
concerns to their clients or customers without written permission of the
Office of Kermit Development and Distribution, Columbia University. This
copyright notice must not be removed, altered, or obscured.
*/
It is fairly clear in what it says.
As far as personal or educational use goes, Columbia won't chase you for a
dime, however, the project definitely can use your support. It costs money
to support development and provide technical support. However, the overall
goal of the developers is to improve the world's ability to communicate, not
to make a fast dollar.
Jeffrey Altman * PO Box 220415 * Great Neck, NY * 11022-0415 * (516) 466-5495
"C-Kermit: available on more platforms than any other communications software."
"Kermit FTP: sending files whenever and wherever they are needed."
OS/2 version 189 via ftp from watsun.cc.columbia.edu /kermit/bin/ckoker.zip
Peter da Silva
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
> In article <36...@rwing.UUCP> p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
> >>>for originating calls on Unix machines.
> >>Oh what words come from the keyboards of babes!
> >>Professional-YAM and a number of other packages supporting ZMODEM have
> >>been available for Unix for years.
> >I believe the difference is that one is free, easily available (kermit),
> "it is not in the public domain either, and never has been. It is not
> "shareware". It is not "freeware". It is copyright by Columbia University."
> Kermit News July 1993 Page 1
What does that have to do with whether it's "free and easily available"?
Again, your restrictions are your own business. They're not even that
unreasonable, on their own terms. The problem I see with them is that they
are deceptive.
The key is the term "non commercial use"
In every other package out there, "non commercial use" implies "if you're a
hobbyist, you can use it without paying. If you're a business then you need
to buy a commercial license".
For you to use the term to mean "if you use this with my commercial packages,
then you can use it without paying. If you use it with any other package, even
free ones, then you need to buy a license"... and then to nitpick the use of
"free and easily available" to describe Kermit, is awfully inconsistent EVEN
by Usenet standards.
If you don't want people flaming you for ever, I'd strongly suggest you change
the terminology in your license agreement to match common usage.
> There is no charge for Unix rz/sz when it is used to support
> DSZ, GSZ, ZCOMM, Professional-YAM or PowerCom.
How about, as an aside, if you use rzsz to talk to rzsz?
> How many source code versions of Bimodem have we seen?
> How many source code versions of Blast have we seen?
> How many source code versions of Dart have we seen?
There haven't been any, that I know of, which is why virtually nobody uses
Bimodem, Blast, or Dart.
> When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
Wrong question. The correct question is "when was the last freely
redistributable source code release of Kermit"? You're messing around with
definitions again.
> Maybe it's because they've seen the reception I got.
You get the reception you get because you play silly games with language
that trigger hot buttons in software socialists.
Followups set to alt.sources.d instead of alt.sources. Please follow the
pointer. Thanks.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>In article <1994Jul29.0...@omen.uucp>,
>Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>>In article <36...@rwing.UUCP> p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>"it is not in the public domain either, and never has been. It is not
>>"shareware". It is not "freeware". It is copyright by Columbia University."
>> Kermit News July 1993 Page 1
>>
>
>C-Kermit for Unix has no licensing fee, the only request is that you go
No licensing fee? May I assume then that Frank ca Cruz's requirement that I
include copies of the Kermit books with each copy of software I distribute
is no longer operative?
>Chuck, let someone associated with Kermit or Columbia U. speak for Kermit.
>
>>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
>
>Kermit was never public domain, however, it is readily available and
So Columbia admits there is no public domain Kermit with
performance comparable to the public domain versions of ZMODEM.
Olaf Titz
our students' file transfers"]
> >>> If this is an issue than kermit with good sized packets and
> >>for originating calls on Unix machines.
> >been avaiable for Unix for years.
> makes it unusable unless you want to shell out a lot of $$$. Things
And now for something completely different...
For an alternative, take a look at "term". This one combines multiple
login and file transfer capabilities (at once) with a networking
library that in most situations can replace SLIP (actually, users
claim term to be faster than SLIP).
Drawbacks: Runs only on Unix derivatives (but actually a lot of them;
currently supported are linux, machten, bsdi, titan, aix, netbsd, sun,
solaris2, ultrix, irix, next, hpux, svr4, sco, dynix, hcx).
Incompatible with anything else.
ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux/apps/comm/term/term/term119.tar.gz (143k)
(the 2.x versions are experimental)
GPL licenced, so no problems of this kind.
Olaf
--
___ ol...@bigred.ka.sub.org - uk...@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de
__ o <a href="http://rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de/~uknf/">click</a>
__/<_ also: s_t...@ira.uka.de - uk...@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
_)>(_)_________ "now i find that most of the time love's not enough in itself"
Jeffrey Altman
>In article <31bplg$5...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> jal...@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Altman) writes:
>>Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>>>In article <36...@rwing.UUCP> p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>>"it is not in the public domain either, and never has been. It is not
>>>"shareware". It is not "freeware". It is copyright by Columbia University."
>>> Kermit News July 1993 Page 1
>>>
>>
>>C-Kermit for Unix has no licensing fee, the only request is that you go
>
First, thanks for deleting the very important copyright statement which
includes the licensing info.
I will repost it here to remind you of its contents.
/*
Author: Frank da Cruz (f...@columbia.edu, FD...@CUVMA.BITNET),
Columbia University Academic Information Systems, New York City.
Copyright (C) 1985, 1994, Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New
York. The C-Kermit software may not be, in whole or in part, licensed or
sold for profit as a software product itself, nor may it be included in or
distributed with commercial products or otherwise distributed by commercial
concerns to their clients or customers without written permission of the
Office of Kermit Development and Distribution, Columbia University. This
copyright notice must not be removed, altered, or obscured.
*/
Now, whether or not there is a licensing fee is all determined based upon
what agreement you reach in order to get the "written permission of the
Office of Kermit Development and Distribution, Columbia University." In
other words, the licensing fee is set by Frank da Cruz.
So yes, there is a potential fee. But really there is a requirement that
you get permission from Columbia U. to distribute.
>May I assume then that Frank ca Cruz's requirement that I
>include copies of the Kermit books with each copy of software I distribute
>is no longer operative?
>
What are you distributing Kermit as, a commercial concern or an individual?
Are you including it as part of another software package?
If you are either commercial or distributing it within another package
then you must get permission, whatever that requires. If on the other hand
your are non-commercial, or only want to distribute Kermit by itself,
ie, setup a distribution site the requirements are different.
>>Chuck, let someone associated with Kermit or Columbia U. speak for Kermit.
>>
>>>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
>>
>>Kermit was never public domain, however, it is readily available and
>
>So Columbia admits there is no public domain Kermit with
>performance comparable to the public domain versions of ZMODEM.
GNU software isn't Public Domain either, yet is used by people all over
the world without this type of debate.
Olaf Titz
> Did anyone notice this in crctab.c of the rzsz distribution?:
> #define updcrc(cp, crc) ( crctab[((crc >> 8) & 255)] ^ (crc << 8) ^ cp)
> They copyrighted one (1, uno, een, ein) macro that is based on a
> article (which one?!).
> This is the single addition to the whole CRC code and they
> place it somewhere in between somebody else's code like they make some
> contribution to mankind.
The first time I saw this definition (copied verbatim along with the
copyright remark about ten times as long as the code) was in a
completely different program. The module contained a header telling
that it had been pulled from somewhere else and the required credit
was unadulterated.
It also contained the referenced crctab (256 16-bit values) which I
thought was the really important part of this CRC calculation...
but wait, the comment on the table (*before* the Satchell copyright
notice) simply says:
/* crctab calculated by Mark G. Mendel, Network Systems Corporation */
Actually, the byte-munching macro seems trivial and rather useless w/o
the accompanying table.
> I justed wanted to show this because personally I think that
> programmers that copyright 1 macro on top of somebody else's code
> should be banned from the Internet without hesitation.
This is a case of copyright discussion that isn't worth the bytes on
which that notice was written first, IMHO. 1/2-:-)
Richard Kooijman
>There is no charge for Unix rz/sz when it is used to support
>DSZ, GSZ, ZCOMM, Professional-YAM or PowerCom. If Datastorm or
>Crosstalk customers wish to send files to/from Unix without
>using DSZ or a slow Kermit then rz/sz can be registered for the
^^^^
>Unix machine at a fraction of the unit cost of Procomm.
How long can a person keep spitting out this nonsense.
Chuck, stop hammering about Kermit and it supposedly slowness!!!!!
In the computing environment I use, Kermit wins. It is as fast
as rzsz but much more robust.
I decide which product I use and I don't need to read all those
messages from you that rzsz/DSZ/GSZ is so much better.
>Translation: I've already paid money to Datastorm or Crosstalk, and I
>don't feel like paying for rz/sz just to get some use out of my Procomm.
Pfffrrrrttt!!!!
>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
8 July 1993, version 3.13.
You mean that releasing new code every month is better? I just think
that that are more bugs in that code that apparently needed fixing.
>Maybe it's because they've seen the reception I got.
The negative or positive ones?
Richard.
Vernon Schryver
>Richard Kooijman <ric...@dutepp6.et.tudelft.nl> wrote:
> ...
>It also contained the referenced crctab (256 16-bit values) which I
>thought was the really important part of this CRC calculation...
Are you guys worried about something like the CRC table in RFC-1331
and successors? If so, why not just grap a copy of the ASCII RFC,
cut out the English, and compile the C source?
That table and the obvious macro to use it can't possibly justify
all of this natter about copyrights and who stole what from whom.
At least, not among people with a clue about programming.
Vernon Schryver v...@rhyolite.com
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>In article <CtqG3...@omen.com>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>In article <31bplg$5...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu> jal...@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Jeffrey Altman) writes:
>>>In article <1994Jul29.0...@omen.uucp>,
>>>Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>>>>In article <36...@rwing.UUCP> p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
>>>>"it is not in the public domain either, and never has been. It is not
>>>>"shareware". It is not "freeware". It is copyright by Columbia University."
>>>> Kermit News July 1993 Page 1
>>>>
>>>
>>>C-Kermit for Unix has no licensing fee, the only request is that you go
>>
>>No licensing fee?
To quote from someone authoritative:
> Could you be specific about "modest share"?
>
Our standard terms and conditions call for commercial outfits that
include Kermit software with their products to also include copies
of the relevent books. That's how we get our income. Other kinds of
arrangements (like source code licensing) are negotiated on a
per-case basis; we prefer the former arrangement.
- Frank
-----------------------------------------
Professional-YAM does not use any proprietary Columbia code.
I raised the question only to point out that both Omen and
Columbia are in the software business to make money.
The Kermit in Professional-YAM and ZCOMM is based on source code
released by The Source for developers to use to support their
timesharing service. This is the code that found its way into
many commercial programs, as The Source intended. According to
Frank:
. Sliding Windows. Of course, I know the history too. I worked closely with
The Source throughout the development of sliding windows, but the
implementations that they commissioned were rush jobs that left a lot to be
desired. They were nowhere near "efficient and robust under stress". They
were buggy as all get-out, hideous to contemplate internally, and broke more
often than they worked. This was the code that was incorporated into
shareware Procomm, by the way, and who knows where else. Eventually, we
wrote our own sliding windows implementations completely from scratch.
Compare them yourself for robustness and efficiency with The Source version.
Over the years I have cleaned up the Kermit code in Professional-YAM.
That code required structural redesign to accomodate some of the
mainframe applications our customers depended on. And then long
packets and more recently Kermit-94.
Chris Adams
>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
Hey, Chuck, when was the last high performance public domain Zmodem
release?
--
Chris Adams
rac...@iquest.com
United States Space Academy Simulations Director and Trainer
"With friends like these, who needs halucinations?" - Buddy, 'Night Court'
ssatchell on BIX
>Olaf
Ah HAH! So *this* is where everyone is talking behind my back. I'm just
surprised that the *only* person who made any attempt to locate me, the
original copyright holder, was Chuck Forsberg...and I had to hunt for this
discussion.
Now for the facts: In 1986 I wrote an article which I published in the
IBMCOM Forum of CompuServe. This article took every description of the
CRC algorithm that I could find which related to XMODEM-CRC calculation
and created C source for each of the descriptions. The article continued
by testing each algorithm with each other, and with an XMODEM block which
was captured with a data sniffer. Four of the algorithms were wrong, and
the last algorithm (which was algorithm #4 slightly reworked) did work.
I then took a suggestion from a microcontroller chip vendor's documentation
and developed the table-driven method for XMODEM CRC, and published that
as part of the article, along with my results.
Chuck Forsberg then asked for permission to use the table-driven algorithm,
which is why you see some versions with my copyright alone (from the
original article) and some with both my copyright and Chuck Forsberg's
copyright (from the derivation).
The C-language macro and its accompaning table are part of a copyrighted work.
The macro alone would be considered fair use; the macro with the table exceeds
fair use. In the second case, my permission to use without royalty is
based on proper credit appearing in the source -- no external credit is
required.
And that's it. I'll add this newsgroup to my list temporarily, so I can
follow this thread.
To Richard Kooijman <ric...@dutepp6.et.tudelft.nl>:
Before crying for the revocation of my UseNet access rights, I suggest you
discuss such matters with me first, preferably in private. I find it rude
in the extreme that you blast me BEHIND MY BACK in public without even a
by-your-leave in private. My copyright is valid, and if necessary I'll take
the necessary legal steps to protect my rights.
Is this an isolated incident, or do you have other bad habits?
Stephen Satchell, ssat...@bix.com, 70007...@compuserve.com
The opinions posted here are my own, and not necessarily the opinions of
any other person, organization, religion, political party, or rabble.
Richard Kooijman
>That table and the obvious macro to use it can't possibly justify
>all of this natter about copyrights and who stole what from whom.
>At least, not among people with a clue about programming.
You're absolutely right.
This remark of mine sure raised some more discussion than the real
contents of my message: the comparison between zm and rzsz.
Nobody wanted to comment on that?
Richard.
Chris Adams
>In article <31f3vq$6...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>In alt.sources, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
>>
>>Hey, Chuck, when was the last high performance public domain Zmodem
>>release?
>
>it simply blows away public domain Kermit versions.
>
>To answer your question more carefully, I compared some file transfers
Um, but that wasn't my question. It looks like you are just trying to
use my question as an excuse to bash Kermit some more. I asked _when_
the last high performance public domain Zmodem released?
Also, you say that Version 2.12 "simply blows away public domain Kermit
version." But then you ask where a public domain version of Kermit is,
saying that you have never seen one. Can't even bash it without
contradicting yourself?
By the way, I tried last year to ask Mr. Forsburg where I could get
information on programming my own version of Zmodem into a communication
program I was writing, and I mentioned that I was currently using
Procomm Plus for DOS. I got a response that I should use the external
programs from his company, that they were better than what was built in
to PC+. When I asked what the difference was, and repeated my request
for programming info, I got a reply that if I didn't know the
difference, he didn't want me programming Zmodem. Further emails were
ignored.
Pat Myrto
/In article <36...@rwing.UUCP> p...@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
/>>>It also has the advantage that at least one *working* implementation exists
/>>>for originating calls on Unix machines.
/>>
/>>Oh what words come from the keyboards of babes!
/>>
/>>Professional-YAM and a number of other packages supporting ZMODEM have
/>>been available for Unix for years.
/>
/>I believe the difference is that one is free, easily available (kermit),
/
/"it is not in the public domain either, and never has been. It is not
/"shareware". It is not "freeware". It is copyright by Columbia University."
/ Kermit News July 1993 Page 1
/
/>the other, while nice as an xfer protocol, has a license that effectively
/>makes it unusable unless you want to shell out a lot of $$$. Things
/>like defining 'commercial use' as someone downloading a file from a host
/>that happens to charge a fee for accounts is just a ploy for saying
/>"you can't use zmodem for anything but sending to yourself" (even though
/>the protocol is supposed to be public domain), and trying to prevent
/>useful versions from being written by nitpicking on the code...
/
/Oh what words still come from the keyboards of babes!
Ad hominums don't butress your arguments.
/There is no charge for Unix rz/sz when it is used to support
/DSZ, GSZ, ZCOMM, Professional-YAM or PowerCom. If Datastorm or
/Crosstalk customers wish to send files to/from Unix without
/using DSZ or a slow Kermit then rz/sz can be registered for the
/Unix machine at a fraction of the unit cost of Procomm.
Yeh. If you don't connect with a professional service, or download
files from/to it, or choose to limit your comm packages to either Pro-YAM
or such.
/>Another problem: Pro-YAM is available as BINARY ONLY (unless things
/>have changed), and was never available for my first platform years ago,
/
/Professional-YAM has been available under a $400 source license since
/1989.
Funny. I asked around that time and got no response - I was trying to
get a version I could get up on an ATT 7300. First I was told it
was not available, then I was not given any responses on future queries.
I recall a post some years ago asking if there would be an interest in
such releases, I responded hell, yes, if the price was reasonable. It
got not so much as an acknowlegement. So you will understand why I
1) was unaware of such release
2) decided to not bother continued attempts at contact with Omen, which
seemed to not care to even answer e-mail.
I figure that has cost you many hundreds of bucks in lost business,
not to mention good will. As a result, interest in Pro-YAM has faded
a lot, and more recent restrictions/crippling of rz/sz has re-enforced
this.
/>even though requests were sent, which were unanswered. This creates an
/>unwanted problem for a lot of people (Omen doesn't have quite the stake
/>that, say, Sun has in ensuring no 'unfriendly' code is present, so them
/>and Sun selling binary only aint the same thing), and carries a lot of
/>unnecessary baggage for situations where one only wishes to use some
/>other comm program besides Pro-YAM, or only wants to use the rz/sz part.
/
/Translation: I've already paid money to Datastorm or Crosstalk, and I
/don't feel like paying for rz/sz just to get some use out of my Procomm.
Bullshit. I used to be a registered user of zcomm, which I still have, but
don't use anymore because it is a DOS program, and I quit using dos years
ago.
Trhanslation right back: You cant give a good answer to the above (where
did I say I was even using DOS in the prior post?) so you decide to lay
a smoke screen... Only platforms I have mentioned were unix platforms
(UNIX PC and Sun). Since when does Datastorm procomm run on unix,
please? And where did I say I used that proeuct? You are trying to
attribute things to me that are not true. That is not nice.
And it is possible SOME folks that use DOS might prefer the interface
of procomm (or Pcomm) to Pro-YAM... What good is a hi-performance comm
package if it is beyond the average user to set up properly (if it is
anything like ZCOMM, I have yet to see an average dos user that can set
it up properly to get it to work right).
/>Pro-YAM is kinda big to load just to get zmodem. Be much better to have
/>a full-featured zmodem, WITH SOURCE, available for a reasonable price,
/>not 3 figures to just get a file xfer protocol. Face it, many users
/>are casual users and don't want to fight with a phone.t file to add
/>another site to dial, and much usage doesn't use the comm portion at all.
/
/They can register DSZ and use rz/sz for free. Most of the people reading
/this post can easily afford the $20.00 to register DSZ.
Since when is dsz available for unix platforms, please? The stock answer
to unix users has been 'ya wanna use full featured zmodem under unix,
get Pro-YAM and invoke it as sz or rz... have this big ... thing ... on
disk just to have fully functional zmodem. feh.
The smoke to dodge the point is not appealing.
/>Make source available, and without charging 3 arms and a leg, and you
/>will probably have more takers. That is what turned me off - absence
/>of source, and this big ... thing ... many times the size of an older
/>rzsz, just to get zmodem for one's preferred comm program that is
/>available for FREE, and with source. Also, the newer versions of rzsz
/>are deliberately crippled to deny that use, presumably to force people
/>to buy the 80 percent of unwanted baggage in Pro-YAM, *WITHOUT* source,
/>just to get zmodem). The real effect is to force one to purchase a
/>binary-only version of a comm program one does not want, just to get a
/>zmodem that will work with one's EXISTING (and preferred) comm program.
/
/How many source code versions of Bimodem have we seen?
Who uses it (on unix, at least, where source is really necessary)?
/How many source code versions of Blast have we seen?
WHo uses it (on unix, at least)?
/How many source code versions of Dart have we seen?
Never even heard of it. Nobody I connect with has it.
/When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
When was the last public domain fully functional zmodem released?
When was the last time someone tried to surpress release of any
fully functional zmodem from a source other than Omen?
/Maybe it's because they've seen the reception I got.
Maybe, but not likely. The reception you got is due to anal-retentive
policies, IMO.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>In article <CtsLo...@omen.COM>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>In article <31f3vq$6...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>>In alt.sources, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
>>>
>>>Hey, Chuck, when was the last high performance public domain Zmodem
>>>release?
>>
>>Version 2.12 It still beats the fastest Kermit sometimes and
>>it simply blows away public domain Kermit versions.
>>
>>To answer your question more carefully, I compared some file transfers
>
>Um, but that wasn't my question. It looks like you are just trying to
>use my question as an excuse to bash Kermit some more. I asked _when_
>the last high performance public domain Zmodem released?
You just didn't read my answer. Rz/sz 2.12 is a high
performance public domain release that beats today's proprietary
Kermit in a fair test. I said "some of the time" because it is
possible to use trick files and/or a trick test to make
Columbia's proprietary Kermit appear to beat it (see "Columbia
Stochastic Telepathic Kermit Hyperprotocol").
The question of when 2.12 was released is just a read herring.
>Also, you say that Version 2.12 "simply blows away public domain Kermit
>version." But then you ask where a public domain version of Kermit is,
>saying that you have never seen one. Can't even bash it without
>contradicting yourself?
With all the flack I've gotten for not putting all my work in the
public domain I have a right to point out the hypocrisy in such
attacks. According to Columbia University, Kermit is not in the
public domain and never has been. Nonetheless, earlier versions
of Kermit distributed by "The Source" were free for developers to
include in their software. Maybe there is no public domain Kermit
for DOS or Unix, but what was available is certainly not as
proprietary as Columbia's recent releases.
As shown by the very slow transfer between C-Kermit and Telix,
public domain Kermit got its reputation for slow file transfers
the hard way: it *earned* it.
>By the way, I tried last year to ask Mr. Forsburg where I could get
^^^^^^^^
Too lazy to spell my name correctly.
>information on programming my own version of Zmodem into a communication
>program I was writing, and I mentioned that I was currently using
>Procomm Plus for DOS. I got a response that I should use the external
>programs from his company, that they were better than what was built in
>to PC+. When I asked what the difference was, and repeated my request
>for programming info, I got a reply that if I didn't know the
>difference, he didn't want me programming Zmodem. Further emails were
>ignored.
Considering all the poor quality protocol implementations
various programmers have loosed on the public, my concern that
the reputation of ZMODEM would not be well served by the output
of yet another novice communications programmer is well
founded.
Finally, I have no obligation to provide free consulting
services to a non customer who intends to compete with my source
of income.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
The issue of zm's plagiarism and copyright violation has been settled.
The sniping has shifted to complaining about the copyright(s)
associated with the CRC calculations. The only requirement
imposed by the copyrights on the CRC generation is the proper
crediting of the authors involved, yet even this is too much for
some selfish individuals who think theft is contribution.
Chris Adams
>In article <31gkbu$j...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>In article <CtsLo...@omen.COM>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>In article <31f3vq$6...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>>>In alt.sources, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>>>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
>>>>
>>>>Hey, Chuck, when was the last high performance public domain Zmodem
>>>>release?
>>>
>>>Version 2.12 It still beats the fastest Kermit sometimes and
>>>it simply blows away public domain Kermit versions.
>>>
>>>To answer your question more carefully, I compared some file transfers
>>
>>Um, but that wasn't my question. It looks like you are just trying to
>>use my question as an excuse to bash Kermit some more. I asked _when_
>>the last high performance public domain Zmodem released?
>
>You just didn't read my answer. Rz/sz 2.12 is a high
>
I guess you are too lazy
(see below)
No it wasn't. That is what I wanted to know - WHEN!
>>Also, you say that Version 2.12 "simply blows away public domain Kermit
>>version." But then you ask where a public domain version of Kermit is,
>>saying that you have never seen one. Can't even bash it without
>>contradicting yourself?
>
>With all the flack I've gotten for not putting all my work in the
>public domain I have a right to point out the hypocrisy in such
>attacks. According to Columbia University, Kermit is not in the
>public domain and never has been. Nonetheless, earlier versions
>of Kermit distributed by "The Source" were free for developers to
>include in their software. Maybe there is no public domain Kermit
>for DOS or Unix, but what was available is certainly not as
>proprietary as Columbia's recent releases.
>
>As shown by the very slow transfer between C-Kermit and Telix,
>public domain Kermit got its reputation for slow file transfers
>the hard way: it *earned* it.
I don't see what you said as pointing out the hypocrisy in such attacks.
I see it as deliberate misinformation to try to skew the results in your
favor. You still have not ever shown that there was a public domain
version. Free is _not_ public domain. Yet you still bash "public
domain Kermit" in the next paragraph.
>>By the way, I tried last year to ask Mr. Forsburg where I could get
> ^^^^^^^^
>Too lazy to spell my name correctly.
I really resent this. I suppose that you have never made a typing
mistake?
>>information on programming my own version of Zmodem into a communication
.
.
>>for programming info, I got a reply that if I didn't know the
>>difference, he didn't want me programming Zmodem. Further emails were
>>ignored.
>
>Considering all the poor quality protocol implementations
>various programmers have loosed on the public, my concern that
>the reputation of ZMODEM would not be well served by the output
>of yet another novice communications programmer is well
>founded.
>
>Finally, I have no obligation to provide free consulting
>services to a non customer who intends to compete with my source
>of income.
I agree with you there that you have no obligation to help me with
anything. However, you never said that when I asked for information.
First you implied that I was stupid and then you said that you did not
want me programming Zmodem (I don't care what you want me to do). You
don't have control over whether I program Zmodem or not.
What do you care if I write a poor implementation? Then you can point
out that it is not good, and try to sell more copies of your
implementation. Also, how do you know that I would write a poor
implementation? Just because I have never written Zmodem before doesn't
mean I can't do a good job. I suppose you never sold any of the first
version of anything? If I were to write Zmodem into my program, I would
test it thoroughly. I know quite a few people who would be willing to
help.
The reason people attack you is not because you won't place Zmodem in
the public domain, but because of the way you attack everyone else and
your attitude in general. I know that I will not ever buy any of your
programs because of your attitude and responses to me.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
(the AT&T machine with 320k floppies for backup). Unfortunately the
Unix-PC was so non-standard that porting nontrivial software to it was
problematic and a satisfactory port never materialized. We did not
get many inquiries about the Unix-PC, the machine was not selling,
so there wasn't any reason to put more resources into it.
Anyone who accuses me of trying to expunge the excellent public
domain versions of rz/sz from the face of the Earth had better
get some hard facts together to back up their accusations or
apologize.
Pat is correct in suggesting some prefer the user interface of
commercial programs such as Crosstalk or Procomm to
Professional-YAM. That does not obligate me to support these
competitors for free, which is what Pat and others insist I do.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>No it wasn't. That is what I wanted to know - WHEN!
WHEN is irrelevant when the performance of 2.12 is excellent.
>>As shown by the very slow transfer between C-Kermit and Telix,
>>public domain Kermit got its reputation for slow file transfers
>>the hard way: it *earned* it.
>
>I don't see what you said as pointing out the hypocrisy in such attacks.
>I see it as deliberate misinformation to try to skew the results in your
>favor. You still have not ever shown that there was a public domain
>version. Free is _not_ public domain. Yet you still bash "public
>domain Kermit" in the next paragraph.
OK, maybe there never was a public domain version of Kermit.
There are public domain versions of rz/sz ZMODEM, and they are
as fast as the best proprietary versions of Kermit in many
applications.
>What do you care if I write a poor implementation? Then you can point
>out that it is not good, and try to sell more copies of your
>implementation. Also, how do you know that I would write a poor
The same reason I care that Procomm and Telix don't have great
implementations. They give Columbia University excuse to claim
"Kermit outperforms the competition every time". Not having a
publicly subsidized non profit mailing permit, I cannot
effectively counter Columbia's deceptive advertising as well as
I would like to.
Paul A Vixie
platform I'll ever run into (I could even run it on an HP48 if I had one)
and get binary files transferred Right Now. It's nice to not have to pay
money (I own several copies of each of the Kermit books), but it's even
nicer to be able to move files from a HP3000 Series II to a CP/M 2.2 box
without having to worry.
Of course, anyone who wants to use something else is welcome to do that.
Can we stop this craziness now?
--
Paul Vixie
Redwood City, CA
decwrl!vixie!paul
<pa...@vix.com>
Richard Kooijman
>As shown by the very slow transfer between C-Kermit and Telix,
>public domain Kermit got its reputation for slow file transfers
>the hard way: it *earned* it.
Telix's fault. Bad implementation. Grow up Chuck. I know that and you
know that.
>>Procomm Plus for DOS. I got a response that I should use the external
>>programs from his company, that they were better than what was built in
>>to PC+. When I asked what the difference was, and repeated my request
>>for programming info, I got a reply that if I didn't know the
>>difference, he didn't want me programming Zmodem. Further emails were
>>ignored.
>Considering all the poor quality protocol implementations
>various programmers have loosed on the public, my concern that
>the reputation of ZMODEM would not be well served by the output
>of yet another novice communications programmer is well
>founded.
Jesus, great PR. The man asked about the differences between the
PC+ implementation and yours. How could he have known? Guessing?
Because the great Chuck F. was behind it, that version is
automatically better?
>Finally, I have no obligation to provide free consulting
>services to a non customer who intends to compete with my source
>of income.
You don't like to sell stuff either, I guess. Ever heard of licenses?
Richard.
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
I would just like to mention that alt.sources is not a place for discussion.
Quoting from the alt.sources FAQ:
---
Alt.sources IS NOT for requests for source code; the
alt.sources.wanted newsgroup is for that. Alt.sources IS NOT for
comments and discussion about source code, even source code posted in
alt.sources; the alt.sources.d newsgroup is for that. Only source
code should be posted to alt.sources.
---
I was hoping the cross-posting would fan itself out but it doesn't seem
to be the case.
So please, please, please, change the newsgroup line to alt.sources.d
when submitting a follow-up. Keep alt.sources for distribution of source
code only.
I (and a lot of other people) would really appreciate that.
Many thanks.
--
Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Digital Comms. Section, Elec. Eng. Department
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London SW7 2BT, UK
Internet/Bitnet: <foo...@ic.ac.uk> - Janet: <foo...@uk.ac.ic>
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>c...@omen.COM (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
>
>>As shown by the very slow transfer between C-Kermit and Telix,
>>public domain Kermit got its reputation for slow file transfers
>>the hard way: it *earned* it.
>
Quite. Hundreds. The most important of them, I can't talk about yet.
Michael C. Loewen
>In article <31gkbu$j...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>In article <CtsLo...@omen.COM>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>In article <31f3vq$6...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>>>In alt.sources, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>>>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
Will you people PLEASE remove alt.sources from your Newsgroups line?!?!?
--
Mike Loewen The Centre Programmers Unit BBS
mlo...@cpumagic.scol.pa.us (814) 353-0566 V.32bis/HST
Chris Adams
>In article <31hcis$6...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>No it wasn't. That is what I wanted to know - WHEN!
>
>WHEN is irrelevant when the performance of 2.12 is excellent.
WHEN is NOT irrelevant! I asked it for a reason! I am the one who
asked it, and when you didn't say, I asked again - WHEN! I wanted to
know WHEN because every copy of Zmodem I have seen archived on the net
is not named with a version number, but with a DATE - as in WHEN it was
released! Can you not read? I'm sorry, but when I ask the same
question twice and get told that what I am asking is not relevant to
your ranting about Kermit, it makes me wonder if you really read any of
my messages.
I am taking this out of alt.sources finally. I appologize to all those
who are upset that I didn't do it earlier (I didn't notice - my fault).
ssatchell on BIX
>You don't like to sell stuff either, I guess. Ever heard of licenses?
Oh, Chuck's heard of licenses. I looked into licensing ZMODEM(90) when
I was doing some work for ZD Labs on modem benchmarks. The testing,
however, went in another direction (under the direction of TIA TSSC TR-30.3)
so I didn't pursue this further.
During that investigation, I did discover an interesting hole in the
protocol. I call it "the NAK-NAK joke" and reported it to Chuck. While
the public-domain description of ZMODEM has the bug, Chuck fixed the
licensed version so that the protocol would no longer hang.
(Chuck, if you've updated the public-domain definition to fix the problem,
please let me know.)
Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations, Incline Village, NV
Testing modems for magazines and industry since 1984
ssat...@bix.com, 70007...@compuserve.com
ssatchell on BIX
>In article <Cttsw...@omen.COM> c...@omen.COM (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
>>In article <31gkbu$j...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>>In article <CtsLo...@omen.COM>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>>In article <31f3vq$6...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>>>>In alt.sources, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>>>>>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
> Will you people PLEASE remove alt.sources from your Newsgroups line?!?!?
It *would* help if you would have removed it from yours. I did for this
reply.
Olaf Klein
In article <1994Aug1.1...@cc.ic.ac.uk> o...@ic.ac.uk (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) writes:
OC> This is not meant to be a flame. I would just like to mention
OC> that alt.sources is not a place for discussion.
For Chuck Forsberg you have to paint pictures, he can't read. For a
proof, take a look at his sources... :-)
Bye, Olaf
--
Es gibt nicht einmal einen logischen Grund, am Leben zu bleiben. Aber der
Instinkt sagt es uns, und daher wollen wir es. [Poul Anderson]
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>In article <CttxJ...@omen.COM>, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.COM> wrote:
>>In article <31hcis$6...@vespucci.iquest.com> rac...@vespucci.iquest.com (Chris Adams) writes:
>>>No it wasn't. That is what I wanted to know - WHEN!
>>
>>WHEN is irrelevant when the performance of 2.12 is excellent.
>
>WHEN is NOT irrelevant! I asked it for a reason! I am the one who
>asked it, and when you didn't say, I asked again - WHEN! I wanted to
>know WHEN because every copy of Zmodem I have seen archived on the net
>is not named with a version number, but with a DATE - as in WHEN it was
>released! Can you not read? I'm sorry, but when I ask the same
>question twice and get told that what I am asking is not relevant to
>your ranting about Kermit, it makes me wonder if you really read any of
>my messages.
The date appearing on a file on an FTP site is not a guarantee of
anything.
I am not responsible for the way FTP sites not under my direct control
choose to archive rz/sz distributions. They should indicate the
version number, not the date.
If you are looking for the latest royalty free version I suggest
you order Omen's "Zmodem Developer's Collection".
Leslie Mikesell
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX <c...@omen.UUCP> wrote:
>There is no charge for Unix rz/sz when it is used to support
>DSZ, GSZ, ZCOMM, Professional-YAM or PowerCom.
However, you have yet to explain how the person who might be installing
rz/sz on a unix machine with many users is supposed to be able
to predict what any or all of those users will be running on the
other end of a phone line. If you really want to restrict the
usage, why didn't you build in some kind of a runtime check at
a point where it would actually be possible?
>Translation: I've already paid money to Datastorm or Crosstalk, and I
>don't feel like paying for rz/sz just to get some use out of my Procomm.
Translation: I want to make what is available to my users, but I'm not
about to call up hundreds of people and ask if they have sent you any
money.
>When was the last high performance public domain Kermit released?
Why is being public domain significant?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Peter da Silva
> With all the flack I've gotten for not putting all my work in the
> attacks.
Very few people have been giving you flack about not putting your work in
the public domain. They are giving you flak about playing games with the
status of your work, such as redefining common terms so people are led to
believe that your program is being distributed similarly to Kermit rather
than being a simple promotional giveaway to get people to buy Pro-YAM.
There's nothing *wrong* with distributing demo software. The problem is
advertising it as something like ordinary freeware* when you do. If you just
said "this is shareware, but if you buy Pro-YAM (etc) the license to use it
with Pro-YAM (etc) is built in" you'd avoid 90% of the flames.
And you still haven't answered my question: is it OK to use rzsz to talk to
rzsz?
--
* "something like ordinary freeware" includes the GPL, "non-commercial use"
licenses, the Berkeley license, and the Kermit license... all of which
allow hobbyists to use it for their own purposes at no charge. If you
don't allow that use, then what you're selling is one way or another
some variant of shareware: demo software with varying degrees of latitude
in how much you can use it before paying for it.
--
Peter da Silva `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd. Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
+1 713 274 5180 "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"