Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: tay...@hplabsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc,news.groups,news.software.b
Subject: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Feb-87 14:42:55 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1312
Posted: Tue Feb 17 14:42:55 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Feb-87 20:30:47 EST
Reply-To: tay...@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Followup-To: news.software.b
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 45
While recently perusing the latest version of netnews, 2.11, from
Rick Adams, I noticed that it is now copyrighted by him. This is
a cause for concern for various reasons, not the least of which is that
we suddenly have a piece of software that everyone is running and is
freely distributed (but not public domain) that is legally owned by
an individual.
So instead I'd like to propose a group of people get together and work
on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without copyright and
without any limitations on its use and distribution. If people want
to try to foist a copy off with their own copyright that's okay (of
course it wouldn't be a valid copyright anyway since it had already
been distributed withOUT one). We will make the public domain version
easily available through various mechanisms including netnews itself.
If it comes to pass that the Rick Adams/backbone-gang version of netnews
begins to cost money to obtain, then I would expect that the public
domain version we'd write would be included on such things as the USENIX
distribution tape and in mod.sources (Rich?). Even if not, it would be
useful to have yet a different implementation of the software since
diversity and competition breeds improvement.
Sooo...I'd like to begin building a list of people that are interested in
this "public service to the usenet" project. If you have a willingness
to contribute positively to the group (either through documentation,
programming, debugging through actual use, or merely useful feedback)
please drop me a line and I'll start to organize this. Later on I think
we should create a newsgroup for it...but that'll be a function of how
things work out.
I propose that we call the effort "pd-netnews" and our first version
be something like version 2.11. No. I guess that would be kinda
confusing, eh? :-)
It is important for people to realize that this isn't merely a "lets
get back at Rick Adams" game. I think Rick is a reasonable person and
is an asset to the net. I just am very *VERY* disturbed by his adding
a copyright to the latest netnews software...it is a harbinger of even
more change...
All responses are being funnelled into news.software.b for now, so if
you'd like to continue the discussion, please put it there or via email
to me.
-- Dave Taylor (tay...@hplabs.HP.COM)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!tower
From: to...@bu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.admin,news.misc,news.groups,news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <4324@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Wed, 18-Feb-87 13:17:54 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.4324
Posted: Wed Feb 18 13:17:54 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Feb-87 20:29:13 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: to...@prep.ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Followup-To: news.software.b
Organization: Boston Univ. CS Dept.
Lines: 38
In article <1...@hplabsc.UUCP> you write:
> While recently perusing the latest version of netnews, 2.11, from
> Rick Adams, I noticed that it is now copyrighted by him. This is
> a cause for concern for various reasons, not the least of which is that
> we suddenly have a piece of software that everyone is running and is
> freely distributed (but not public domain) that is legally owned by
> an individual.
>
> ...
>
> All responses are being funnelled into news.software.b for now, so if
> you'd like to continue the discussion, please put it there or via email
> to me.
>
> -- Dave Taylor (tay...@hplabs.HP.COM)
Dave:
The problems you fear aren't solved by putting the software into the
Public Domain. I suggest that you consider organizing the netnews
rewrite under the Free Software Foundation that Richard Stallman has
organized for his GNU Project. RMS' approach insures that the
software had its freedom, and that source is always available whenever
the software is distributed. You might also organized a similar
non-profit corporation to hold the copyright, and license the software
in the "free" or "public-domain-like" manner you choose.
Further information is available from the internet address:
<g...@prep.ai.mit.edu>
UUCP:
..!mit-eddie!mit-prep!gnu
--
Len Tower, Distributed Systems Group, Boston University,
111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215, USA +1 (617) 353-2780
Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739
UUCP: {}!harvard!bu-cs!tower INTERNET: to...@bu-cs.bu.edu
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lw...@sdcrdcf.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Feb-87 14:39:18 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.4169
Posted: Wed Feb 18 14:39:18 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 02:11:44 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: lw...@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Organization: Unisys - System Development Group, Santa Monica
Lines: 61
[Watch out! Here come the big guns!]
In article <1...@hplabsc.UUCP> tay...@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes:
>So instead I'd like to propose a group of people get together and work
>on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without copyright and
>without any limitations on its use and distribution.
There's a fly in your ointment, Dave. The ONLY way to keep someone else
from copyrighting and selling your code, or a derivative of your code,
is to copyright it yourself. Even if you go and get this "group of people
together and work on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without
copyright", there is nothing to prevent Rick Adams from adding a few lines
and copyrighting it again. Being the terrible ogre that he is, he probably
will. Grrr!!!!.
What can you do?
I suggest that when you write this new and wonderful new version of news,
you copyright it, explicitly making it freely redistributable, swearing up
and down that you will never charge any money for it, so that terrible
Rick Adams can't swipe your code and sell it.
Only this would sound terribly familiar, since it is exactly the motivation
Rick had in putting the copyright into the netnews software...
...and that I had in putting a copyright notice into rn! I'm a terrible ogre,
too! Grrr!!!! Grrr!!!!
I'm afraid you've fallen victim to an oversimplified view of reality.
Is there anything I can do to persuade you that those who developed the
news software in the first place know the meaning of the word "volunteer"?
That they already thought about what you are concerned about? The fact is,
Rick Adams and I trust ourselves not to sell this software more than we trust
anyone else not to sell this software. Got that?
Long ago, we realized that it would be absolutely impossible to sell netnews
software (for very long), given the presence of hotheads like you who would
rewrite netnews in a flash. The fact of the matter is, Rick and I are
hotheads like you. While we realize it is impossible to sell netnews software
in the current anarchical environment, long may it live, we also realize that
it is possible for someone of unsavory character to try to sell netnews to
a gullible sub-population, such as new MINIX users, or some such. Eventually
such an unsavory person would be shouted down and drowned out by us hotheads,
but not before some people got burned.
The prevention of this is the only reason for the copyright in rn.
I firmly believe it is the only reason for the copyright in netnews.
It is unfortunate, but there it is: the only way under our current laws to
come closest to the ideal of "Public Domain" software is to NOT put it into
the public domain.
Now perhaps you can understand why so many people are upset because you are
upset at Rick. He's been bending over backwards to be the ideal volunteer,
even going so far as to risk his reputation as the ideal volunteer to do so.
So, enough of panicking and shooting your comrades in the back.
Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: tay...@hplabsc.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <1320@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Feb-87 01:29:11 EST
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.1320
Posted: Thu Feb 19 01:29:11 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 02:56:46 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: tay...@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 108
Gee, Larry. I'm sure glad that you have such a mature and intelligent
way of dealing with serious and important issues. It certainly makes
*me* want to listen to what you have to say...
But let's talk further about your posting anyway...
>The only way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code,
>or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself.
Suprise! That isn't the case. Because once something is released in
the public domain without a copyright it cannot later have a copyright
attached and ex post facto violation of copyright claimed. Furthermore,
since the majority of the code the person is claiming as his has been
previously released without a copyright, their claim is invalid and not
legally binding.
The person *can* copyright their modifications to the code. Furthermore,
since the whole area of "intellectual copyright" is so fuzzy they could
also presumably claim ownership of the changes (ideas), but this still
doesn't preclude someone else from, as you say, becoming a hothead and
rewriting the new part withOUT the copyright.
This in fact is how a number of programs have become available -
individuals / companies have taken very buggy and unreliable public domain
software, extensively worked on it to make it worth buying, and sold it.
The *core* is still public domain, but the program itself is something
that you cannot copy freely.
But that is ok. In fact, that would be A Good Thing for netnews since,
with all deference to Rick and the rest of the people who have worked
on it, it is hardly in a state where we can freeze it and not need any
further development. We need to see some radical software evolution...
>...there is nothing to prevent Rick Adams from adding a few lines
>and copyrighting it [a new netnews] again.
As I pointed out above, this is patently not the case. Sure Rick could
do that (seems unlikely, though), but it wouldn't be a legal and valid
copyright. Not under current U.S. and International Copyright laws, at
least.
>I'm afraid you've fallen victim to an oversimplified view of reality.
I'm afraid YOU've fallen victim to an inadequate understanding of the
laws surrounding copyright. I refer you to a publication of the U.S.
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment entitled "Intellectual
Property in an Age of Electronics and Technology". It would indeed
give you some food for thought.
But this isn't even the crux of my argument - I'm more concerned with
the overtones of the copyright of netnews within the USENET community.
Up until now all versions of netnews have been without copyright and
this has caused a number of mutants to spin off, including the about
to be released C News, and the (rumoured) Teenage Mutant Ninja Netnews
(!) from out of NJ somewhere..
Once a copyright has been established on the code, then people are
legally bound to keep it in. And they will inevitably add their own
copyright too - since otherwise it is implied that the original copy-
right covers their work too (certainly not a good state of affairs).
When a copyrighted system is to be distributed, the distributor is
bound *by law* to have written permission by the holder(s) of the
copyright. This does *not* mean email and this does *not* mean a few
line comment in the code (which is trivial to forge). This means that
if, say, USENIX decided to distribute 2.19 (with 30 people having worked
on it since the infamous copyright-battle of '87) they would have to
track down and obtain the written release of all 30 people. If they
missed one, that person could then legally sue the heck out of the
organization for distribution of their property.
But that isn't the crux either, just an unpleasant sidelight.
What concerns me the most is that, damn it, USENET is supposed to
be a totally free-for-all anarchistic system. We're already seeing
it transition to an oligarchy with the central 'backbone' administration
and other changes, but if we're going to suddenly have ownership of
the *one piece of software that makes USENET a reality* then we might
as well all go join FIDOnet or something.
I appreciate that "rn" is copyrighted, Larry. So is Elm. But if Elm
were the *only* mail system and everyone-and-their-brother used it, I
would *remove* the copyright notice in the interest of it evolving
and such. I would like to imagine that you're enough of a pro-USENET
person that you would do the same if "rn" was the *only* way to read
netnews. Fortunately, perhaps, it isn't. And fortunately, perhaps,
there are mail systems other than Elm.
But there aren't news transport programs other than 2.11. At least,
not until C News comes out. (and I fervently hope that it isn't copy-
righted).
Does this make sense? Or are you still waiting with the annoying
childish comments that you made in your original posting??
If C News *is* copyrighted, I will most certainly find a group of
fellow-"hotheads" and we will most certainly spawn a new version of
netnews. Probably one that will blow 2.11 out of the water.
And again, this is *NOT* an attack on Rick, or a questioning of his
integrity. I wish people would clue in on that. I think Rick is a
Good Person. But I have a serious problem with his having copyrighted
the netnews software, as I've documented here.
I welcome any and all replies to this, but please keep it rational and
professional. We *are* supposed to be a group of people who have some
clue about reality, after all.
-- Dave Taylor --
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utfyzx!sq!msb
From: m...@sq.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <1987Feb20.114205.12298@sq.uucp>
Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 11:42:05 EST
Article-I.D.: sq.1987Feb20.114205.12298
Posted: Fri Feb 20 11:42:05 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 04:53:08 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: m...@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
Lines: 14
Checksum: 46700
> The ONLY way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code,
> or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself.
Hold it! There are two different cases here. It is NOT true that someone
else can copyright something that you wrote and placed in the public domain.
Only the author can claim, or assign away, a copyright. Someone else
can put a copyright notice on it, but at most this creates a burden
of proof. The existence of an earlier public domain copy invalidates the
copyright claim.
Derivative works are another matter.
Mark Brader "I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pedantic and that's just as good."
utzoo!sq!msb (me neither) (me too) -- D Gary Grady
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!allegra!ulysses!faline!sabre!zeta!mb2c!fmsrl7!wayne
From: wa...@fmsrl7.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <806@fmsrl7.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Feb-87 18:55:12 EST
Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.806
Posted: Fri Feb 20 18:55:12 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 20:06:38 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1320@hplabsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: wa...@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne)
Distribution: world
Organization: Ford Motor Company, Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI
Lines: 42
All this discussion about public domain news made me think of a few
things I would LOVE to see in future releases. These include:
1) A way to store the news in compressed form where rn (or whatever)
would uncompress on the fly for display purposes. This would help a LOT for
those of us with limited disk space. Also, for smaller machines that
forward news, it would be less CPU time (decompress-store-compress-send
turns into store-send)
2) A means to use your own pager with rn. It gets real tiring to
hit u (as in less) to back up and suddenly realize you just unsubscribed to
the silly group. Also, my machine doesn't trap ^B, it core dumps.
3) An automated mechanism for expire. Something that detected that
no-one on the machine reads a given group so expire it in <parameter> days.
4) More user control. I keep seeing messages like "I can't do xxx
and my system adminstrator won't help me".
As far as copyright notices, would it be better to license the
software? Something like:
To use this software you must return this (electronic) form.
(I think that for a licence to be valid, something must change
hands. Also, this would give the net a method to track new
machines). By returning said form, you agree not to sell this
work or any derivative work nor to permit it to ever be sold.
Furthermore, you agree to provide access to this work to other
interested parties at no charge (handling or otherwise). You
need not supply a copy for no charge, merely access to the
work. (Something about modifications being OK but original
notice must remain would be reasonable). Once the form has
been received by <wherever>, this license is valid for a period
of 99 years (I think you need dates to make stuff legal and no
one is going to use 99 year old software anyway). This license
may only be revoked if you violate this agreement.
comments?
--
===== Your life is your own fault! ============== Rebel or be oppressed! =====
Michael R. Wayne (313) 322-3986 UUCP: {epsilon|ihnp4}!mb2c!fmsrl7!wayne
Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company ** This space for rent **
Since I am an independent consultant, the above opinions ARE my employers.
===== Are your moral/ethical/religious/political beliefs really rational? ====
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <7682@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Feb-87 21:07:47 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7682
Posted: Sat Feb 21 21:07:47 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 21:07:47 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 19
> So instead I'd like to propose a group of people get together and work
> on a replacement for netnews that is explicitly without copyright and
> without any limitations on its use and distribution...
You may want to consider that there are at least two netnews-replacement
projects already running, both of which intend relatively open release of
their work. The one I'm involved with (C news) will be distributed with
the same sort of copyright notice as other recent stuff from hereabouts:
one that requires proper credit to the authors but otherwise explicitly
authorizes wide-open use and distribution.
You realize, I trust, that if you don't put a copyright on it, anyone can
rip it off, put his name on it, and publish it without credit of any kind?
Or make fifteen stupid changes that introduce an equal number of bugs, and
pass it on to his friends claiming it came from you? This sort of thing
is the reason why I no longer public-domain my stuff.
--
Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: he...@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <7684@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Feb-87 22:12:26 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7684
Posted: Sat Feb 21 22:12:26 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Feb-87 22:12:26 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP>, <1320@hplabsc.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 55
Keywords: C news, copyright
Disclaimer: I haven't spoken to Geoff about the details of this, but I
think the C-news team speaks with pretty much one mind on these issues.
> Up until now all versions of netnews have been without copyright and
> this has caused a number of mutants to spin off, including the about
> to be released C News, and the (rumoured) Teenage Mutant Ninja Netnews...
I can't speak for the TMNN crew, but C news is *not* a mutant of B news.
It is a rewrite, from scratch.
> When a copyrighted system is to be distributed, the distributor is
> bound *by law* to have written permission by the holder(s) of the
> copyright...
Please cite chapter and verse on this. I think you'll find that it's not
that simple; written permission is normal because it's very useful if a
disagreement arises later, but verbal contracts are just as binding as
written ones. In any case, I don't believe the issue comes up when the
copyright notice itself explicitly authorizes distribution.
> But there aren't news transport programs other than 2.11. At least,
> not until C News comes out. (and I fervently hope that it isn't copy-
> righted)...
Barring major changes of mind, C news *will* be copyrighted, with a copyright
notice similar to the ones we've used in the past: one that explicitly
permits all manner of redistribution (including for-profit, since we have no
religious objections to free enterprise) provided that credit is given.
Our general position is that we have no objection to our stuff being used
or redistributed, but we don't want ripoff artists claiming it for their
own, and we most particularly don't want them introducing their own bugs
and then having the victims blame the mess on us. These are *not* silly
concerns. We *have* had our work used without credit, we *have* had it
claimed by others, we *have* had other people's bugs blamed on us. We do
not like any of this, and want to stop it (or at least reduce it). We think
that almost anyone who seriously tries public-domain software distribution
will feel the same way after a while.
> If C News *is* copyrighted, I will most certainly find a group of
> fellow-"hotheads" and we will most certainly spawn a new version of
> netnews. Probably one that will blow 2.11 out of the water.
Heh, heh. Rotsa ruck. You'll find that it's a whole lot of work, much more
than you think. You may find it difficult to sustain the necessary enthusiasm
over the difference between "use freely provided credit is given", and "use
freely". You may also find it difficult to get people to adopt your stuff
unless it offers other major advantages over the alternatives. Beating 2.11
is probably not that hard for anyone who starts from scratch and pays some
attention to avoiding old mistakes, but 2.11 won't be your real competition
by the time you get around to production release (which will take longer than
you think).
--
Legalize Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom! {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lw...@sdcrdcf.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <4185@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Feb-87 17:19:33 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.4185
Posted: Mon Feb 23 17:19:33 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Feb-87 21:37:28 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1987Feb20.114205.12298@sq.uucp>
Reply-To: lw...@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Organization: Unisys - System Development Group, Santa Monica
Lines: 34
I wrote:
>> The ONLY way to keep someone else from copyrighting and selling your code,
>> or a derivative of your code, is to copyright it yourself.
In article <1987Feb20.114205.12...@sq.uucp> m...@sq.UUCP (Mark Brader) writes:
>Hold it! There are two different cases here. It is NOT true that someone
>else can copyright something that you wrote and placed in the public domain.
>Only the author can claim, or assign away, a copyright. Someone else
>can put a copyright notice on it, but at most this creates a burden
>of proof. The existence of an earlier public domain copy invalidates the
>copyright claim.
>
>Derivative works are another matter.
I'm sorry I wasn't being clear. I was concerned with whether you could
prevent someone from *selling* the code. I wasn't really concerned with
whether the copyright is valid or not. When I said "copyright" I was thinking
more of the act of putting a copyright notice in, such as Rick did in fact do.
Fuzzy writing on my part. Grrr!!!
But I'm a firm believer that if the reader doesn't understand, it's the
writer's fault, so I'm not faulting you or Dave for not speaking to the
point I was trying to address.
Aside to Dave. I thank you for the compliment. I cultivate childishness
in my writing because I find it generally has the effect I desire--it
communicates a joy about living that generally makes people happier, and
more receptive to the truth. Even with big, bad grownups who have forgotten
what joy is all about, it helps keep them from falling asleep at their
terminals.
As my Whimsy takes me,
Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!lwall
From: lw...@sdcrdcf.UUCP
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Public Domain Netnews...
Message-ID: <4186@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Feb-87 18:35:26 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcrdcf.4186
Posted: Mon Feb 23 18:35:26 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Feb-87 22:34:56 EST
References: <1312@hplabsc.UUCP> <4169@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <1320@hplabsc.UUCP> <806@fmsrl7.UUCP>
Reply-To: lw...@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall)
Distribution: world
Organization: Unisys - System Development Group, Santa Monica
Lines: 79
In article <8...@fmsrl7.UUCP> wa...@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes:
> All this discussion about public domain news made me think of a few
>things I would LOVE to see in future releases. These include:
>
> 1) A way to store the news in compressed form where rn (or whatever)
>would uncompress on the fly for display purposes. This would help a LOT for
>those of us with limited disk space.
The next version of rn will have support for multiple virtual article
"protocols", such as NNTP, mail, etc. There's no reason you couldn't set
up a protocol that just does a popen("compress -d... instead of a normal open.
Of course, if you add all the protocols, rn will probably exceed your address
space. :-)
> ...Also, for smaller machines that
>forward news, it would be less CPU time (decompress-store-compress-send
>turns into store-send)
But only if you compress articles one at a time. Most news is compressed
a batch at a time.
> 2) A means to use your own pager with rn. It gets real tiring to
>hit u (as in less) to back up and suddenly realize you just unsubscribed to
>the silly group. Also, my machine doesn't trap ^B, it core dumps.
This is not likely to happen, if for no other reason than that the original
reason I wrote rn was to get away from starting up a process on every article.
My sentiments are that if you want that, you want readnews. On the other
hand, I'm sort of a reasonable guy, so I'll throw out an idea that might or
might not be what you want. Set -i=1 and any -h switches so you get a minimal
header. Define yourself a macro that works something like this:
\040 %(%m!=[p]? :!%{PAGER} %A^Jj)
That is, if you hit space in pager mode, invoke your pager on the article and
then junk the article. If you wanted to strip the header off the front, you'd
either have to hack a % interplation into intrp.c that returned the number
of header lines, or use the %B value that gives the header size in bytes,
perhaps with the tail program. Note that the speed of the ! command is
sensitive to the value of SHELL. Note also that the article will be junked
every time you exit the pager, and you'll have to exit the pager before typing
commands like 'r' and 'f'.
If you don't want to go that far, you can at least disable the u command
at the pager level with a macro, or ask for confirmation.
If your machine core dumps when you type ^B because it just doesn't like ^Bs,
there's nothing I can do about that. If, however, it dumps because rn isn't
handling backpage right on your machine, I'd like to know why. You can
disable the ^B as well if it causes you grief.
On a brighter note, you'll be able to implement things like back half a page
in the next rn because I'm going to put in a way to temporarily suppress output
within a macro.
> 3) An automated mechanism for expire. Something that detected that
>no-one on the machine reads a given group so expire it in <parameter> days.
Not my jurisdiction. I try to stay away from matters expirational.
> 4) More user control. I keep seeing messages like "I can't do xxx
>and my system adminstrator won't help me".
Having been in both positions, I haven't the foggiest idea how to do this with
both equity and security.
> As far as copyright notices, would it be better to license the
>software? Something like: ...
I don't see how this would accomplish anything other than filling up my
already full mailbox. If a copyright doesn't scare the ratfinks, I doubt
that an easily forged and easily lost license agreement will do any better.
And the people who are unhappy about the copyright will probably be unhappier
about the license.
Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall
|