     Following  is a digest of messages taken from the SYSOP RCPM 
system  dealing  with the problem of the sale  of  public  domain 
software. I will supply a little background and a few opinions of 
my own.
     Recently, a few cases have surfaced where we have discovered 
public  domain  software,   particularly  communications-related, 
being sold to unsuspecting users as creations of the sellers.  In 
addition  to those cases mentioned below,  I have it on  reliable 
authority that the federal government payed $200,000 for multiple 
copies  of  IE/MODEM.   This earlier version was a copy  of  Ward 
Christensen's MODEM2.  The recent Pournelle column in Byte touted 
Workman's  disks  of public domain software.  The claim  in  both 
cases  is that documentation was improved and in the latter,  the 
distributor  has  gleaned the best of public domain  software  so 
that  the  user  need not wade through the entire  set  of  CPMUG 
disks.
     Workman's retort may have some merit,  but it still irks  me 
that  such  activities  have  caused  programmers  such  as  Ward 
Christensen,  Ron Fowler, and others to forsake the public domain 
world.  These authors are still writing software,  but we are not 
benefitting by it. 
     I  have  no  objection whatsoever to a  talented  programmer 
making a lot of money, but when someone makes a buck from someone 
else's  labor,  that galls me.  I don't know if there  are  legal 
remedies,  and if there are, I don't think we want to undergo the 
expense of court battles.  There is an alternative, and that is a 
campaign  in  the magazines.  Its up to us to warn the unwary  of 
these  questionable  practices and to prevent them  from  wasting 
their money on public domain software.  I hope that those of  you 
who  agree  with  me will feel moved to write a  letter  to  your 
favorite periodical decrying this type of injustice. 
     I apologize for getting on my soapbox, but I feel personally 
insulted by these shenanigans!
                                             Charlie Strom
(messages follow)

Msg 141 is 10 line(s) on 07/04/82 from BEN BRONSON
to PAUL TRAINA about BYE80 MODS

I'm uneasy about continuing to make changes to "official"
versions of an important p.d. program like BYE which are
intended to support only a non-public program like OXGATE.
True, you're not greedy about the price of OXGATE, but the
precedent it sets is a bad one: think of the possibilities
for Lifeboat if they could begin sneaking code for some of
their proprietary applications s'ware into the basic CPMUG
programs.  So I don't intend to carry 'BYE80' on my system
and will urge Dave to rename the program you left here to
'BYEOX' or something like that.

Msg 142 is 04 line(s) on 07/04/82 from BEN BRONSON
to ALL about ETHICS PROBLEM

Take a look at the preceding message to Paul Traina.  It
seems to me like a serious issue, but others may feel
differently.  While I don't like it, I'm willing to go along
with the consensus.

Msg 145 is 28 line(s) on 07/05/82 from DAVE HARDY
to ALL about ETHICS PROBLEM...

  Ben and all, I am also a bit concerned about the idea of
people selling PD software, but, as there is no law against
it (however immoral it may be), we can do nothing about it.
  About putting options into PD programs that are meant for
sale with certain packages (re: OXGATE), that kind of works
in favor of the public domain, since the retailing author
can't claim that the program is exclusively his.  If he were
to copyright a BYE program using PD stuff, then he would
have his pgm, and we would still have ours.
  One thing that REALLY worries me, however, is the 
possibility that some (less than human) 'software
entrepreneur' might attempt to force us from using a program
that WE have written, by copyrighting it himself, and
claiming that we stole it from him.  I am not entirely sure
that a program can be released into the PD without first
being copyrighted by the original author.  At CDP, where I
work, we routinely file for copyright protection on our
software products, and it looks to me like the law says that
a work can only get into the public domain by one of two
different ways: 1. Copyright expires, or 2. Author releases
the copyrighted work into the PD.  There is NO mention about
a work being released into the PD just because the author
publishes it and says so.  I have always assumed that this
could be done, but maybe I was wrong...  Maybe we should
consult a lawyer about this.  We may actually need to 
copyright programs like BYE, MODEM, etc., just to protect
ourselves...  Good Grief, I'm getting paranoid...
Worth looking into, anyway            -Dave

Msg 146 is 16 line(s) on 07/06/82 from RON FOWLER
to ALL about ETHICS PROBLEM...

  I too am against carrying the oxgate mods in our BYE dist-
ribution. Notwithstanding the fact that Oxgate (as I've seen
it) can hardly be called original software (it simply would
not have existed had it not been for the predecessor PD
programs, and I *really* resent my utility program being
sold (hence, I am no longer donating *any* work to the pub-
lic domain)), it seems an error of judgement to tie any of
our work to a commercial program.
  Not that I'm against commercial software -- that's the
only way you'll be able to get my programs in the future --
it's just that tying the most important RBBS program (BYE)
to a package only available commercially seems like a mis-
take to me.
  Pardon the flame, but I'm growing more and more disgusted
daily with the public domain ripoffs (Workman, IE/MODEM, et
al).                        --Ron Fowler

Msg 147 is 16 line(s) on 07/07/82 from JUD NEWELL
to ALL about ETHICS

Interesting discussion...we've just had a similiar series of
sessions in Toronto where one of the Connection 80's has gon
to a user fee for access.
.
I'm against (totally) anyone selling p/d software.  The 
idea of public domain stuff is that it is free (or virtually
so) to anyone.  I don't believe we should support commercial
programs by equates within PD software.  By doing so, we'd
give the impression to all that the commercial stuff (oxgate
in this case) was sanctioned by RCP/M Sysops...an impression
I don't care to give.
.
I'll put BYE80 out, but it will be for non-public use for
special users only.
.
Jud

Msg 150 is 16 line(s) on 07/08/82 from DAVE HOLMES
to KEITH PETERSEN AND ALL about BYE ETC.

I thought I would put in my 2 cents worth about the 
features being added to many programs. I am of the 
opinion that the more the better. I have certainly
learned much from watching the evolution of several
programs and fully expect there maybe problems with
some of them. I do think however that the big advantage
to group programing like this is the early dissemination
of ideas do matter how premature they may be. This is a
hobby with me as well as a proffession and when working
the hobby side I enjoy the lack of constraints to doing
what I want to do at the time. With regard to Paul Traina's
mods, I have made good use of some of his ideas and would
hate to see that sort of thing discouraged. I use a early
version of oxgate before copyrights and a complete 
rewrite which he did for version 3.x and am very happy
with it.

Msg 151 is 16 line(s) on 07/09/82 from WAYNE HAMMERLY
to ALL about ETHICS

  This discussion on ethics brings up a number of points
that certainly need serious consideration. (And pose a
number of questions that need answers).
  I tend to agree with Ben on the issue of proprietary
software and supporting it with the PD stuff.  The spectre
of having someone copyright BYE or MODEM then saying we
stole it from them is scary.  The main problem is that
IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!  At least the first step.
  I am a full-time computer consultant, and just last
week a client engaged my services to get the modem on 
his business computer (a NEC PC-8000) up and running.
Well, I got there, and he presented me with a modem and
the software for it from NEC.  This program (sold by NEC,
for $495(!!!)) was MODEM74!  The documentation was the 
same, the commands the same, and the only difference was
clear and home menu's with NEC's name on top!  

  I'm not kidding, the only changes made were in the screen
formatting that any hacker could accomplish with a few DB
statements.  And NEC is charging $495 for it! (for those
interested, the program is called IE/MODEM and carries the
NEC name.)
  I have to say that I feel OXGATE should NOT be sold. Too
many routines and too much of the code were written by
people other than Paul.
  Since many of us release programs in the PD, and I for
one would be furious if one of my programs (or one that I
contributed to) was sold for profit, I think a talk with
an attorney is in order. Anyone have a brother-in-law that
can help?
   In closing, I just have to say I fear that this is only
the beginning, and only the tip of the iceburg. I see 
plenty of trouble ahead.                   --wayne hammerly

Msg 149 is 16 line(s) on 06/08/82 from KEITH PETERSEN
to ALL about BYE PROGRAM PROBLEMS

To add to the discussion about Paul Traina's additions/
modifications to BYExx ... The stuff he added for the
DC Hayes Smart modem apparently doesn't work - I've had
numerous compliants about this.  Why anyone would add
options to a program and then say "...but this hasn't
been tested..." and then release it to the public is
beyond me!  If this sounds like I'm angry, that's because
I am.  The BYExx program is so much of a mess I hate to
recommend it to ANYONE!  It needs to be completely re-
written and cleaned up.  It suffers badly from
RAMPENT FEATURITUS.  Whatever happened to the original
idea of "let's keep this program small so we can put
it above CP/M and not have to sacrifice much memory"?
I am continuing to carry the PMMIBYE2.ASM file on
my system.  As far as I'm concerned, that was the
last "clean version" for the PMMI modem.

Msg 154 is 16 line(s) on 07/09/82 from BEN BRONSON
to DAVE HOLMES about MORE ETHICS

With regard to your message here and on my system, the
latest Oxgate may indeed have been completely rewritten,
(it's kinda hard for nonowners to know -- the versions
people are running still look a lot like RBBS), but that
isn't the main point.  This is the first case I know of
where p.d. programs are being altered and rereleased, 
ostensibly as standard mainstream programs, solely in order
to accomodate (and inevitably, to advertise) a proprietary
applications-level program.  The alterations and official-
looking rereleases are, moreover, quite frequent.  Every
time Paul updates OXGATE, a new flock of XMODEMs, BYEs, and
minor supporting programs appears, and ordinary users of
these systems are faced with another hour or two of expen-
sive xmodeming while programmers feel obliged to program
around and retain the changes.  But for what?  A handful of
buyers of Oxgate are the only people who have any 
real use for the BYE and XMODEM changes, and Paul surely
sends those to Oxgate buyers anyway.  So why should the
Oxgate-specific features appear in the public versions of
BYE and XMODEM?  Is there any purpose to it besides adver-
tising?
At any rate, it's clear we have to come to an agreement of
some kind if only to keep our version numbers straight.  I
for one do not plan to treat XMODEM51 and 52 as legitimate
versions, and the same goes for BYE80.  If I carry either,
I will rename them OXBYE and OXMGDEM.  I figure Dave Hardy
should think seriously about doing that here as well, before
the confusion gets too severe.

(end of file)
u