Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 04:30:01 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #253
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Thu, 30 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 253
Today's Topics:
copyrights (2 msgs)
Geeze (4 msgs)
hackers alert (final) (2 msgs)
I lied
NOS versions
smtp problem
Why I hate patents
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 09:31:33 EST
From: kz1f@kz1f.hdn.legent.com
Subject: copyrights
To: louie@NI.umd.edu, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
> There are real differences between "Public Domain" and freely
> redistributable code; ask your lawyer. A work or publication that
> contains a Copyright notice is NOT in the public domain. Works that
> are published with no specific notice may still be elligible for
> copyright protection; you have to explicitly reqliquish your rights to
> a work for it to be in the public domain. As they say, ignorance of
> the law is no excuse.
I think the legal aspect of this has been pretty much covered, specifically the
time limitations. Louie, start up NOS and show me a restrictive use
clause anywhere. You won't find one. What I was driving at was intent,
a powerful concept in law. To my mind, placing on public bbs' is intent
to freely distribute.
> You should consider yourself fortunate that through the generosity of
> Phil Karn, you have the source code to this program available. He
I think Phil did some great work. It is not my intent to minimize his efforts
or successes. I do not, however, pray to the southwest.
> The fact that there are people using NOS (and NET before that) in
> violation of the redistribution terms in no way makes those terms
> invalid. Those people are in the wrong, pure and simple. To use that
> as an excuse is no way to repay Phil's hard work.
Again, there were no aspersions(sic) intended. I have not, as yet, received any
hate mail from Phil. I dont think he needs you to be his champion in this
matter. If a person grabs the exes' for grinos, beenos, pmnos, jnos etc
they have no warning/indication they are in violation of any law nor
do they have any indication of restrictive use. The fact its on compuserv
infact shows intent to freely distribute. I personally think source code is
a seperate matter.
>
> It just really angers me to see someone take this position! As
> someone who has written software and released it on similar terms as
> the NOS software this certainly doesn't encourage me to more of the
> same! Your position is just disrepectable and despicable.
The only comments I have here would REALLY offend.
> If you think it's silly to put non-commercial restrictions on freely
> redistributable software, feel free to write your own TCP/IP package
> and put it in the public domain, with no use restrictions, for all to
> use.
Thats precisely what I intend to do with the successors to PMail and PMNOS,
except I will not be releasing source. Besides, as I have said, the versions of
NOS I have seen have no use restrictions, see intent. If I change my mind abt
the restrictive use of WPNOS or WPMail I will clearly state such restrictions
at program startup, why, if they dont have a valid US call or a .edu major node
I might re-format their disk.
With this last reply to hate mail, I am bowing out of this thread.
**********************************************************
* kz1f - Walt Corey * In the absence of a *
* The views expressed are my own * formal system, *
* as are PMNOS, PMail, WPmail * an informal system *
* and WPNOS * develops *
**********************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 21:47:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Sampson <ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil>
Subject: copyrights
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
> louie@NI.umd.edu says:
> It just really angers me to see someone take this position! As
> someone who has written software and released it on similar terms as
> the NOS software this certainly doesn't encourage me to more of the
> same! Your position is just disrepectable and despicable.
Why should it anger you? I've never understood this. Writing the code
and enjoying that process inspired you to release it. Then later when people
start using it you want to restrict it. I think what he was saying that
when you release ANY source code, you have no control over it. Sure there's
a copyright and someone would have to be a cocksucker to steal it, but you
have no control. Now forget about this aspect, and think of the feelings
you had when you uploaded it for the first time, how proud you were.
> If you think it's silly to put non-commercial restrictions on freely
> redistributable software, feel free to write your own TCP/IP package
> and put it in the public domain, with no use restrictions, for all to
> use.
This argument is actually obsolete, as commercial packages are very
inexpensive, and much more powerful than KA9Q NOS. For example I'm
using Super-TCP for Windows now on a PC and it allows me to both use
it commercially AND for Ham use, plus it runs in the background while I
use the computer for what it was intended for. Then there's NetBSD which
also works better than KA9Q NOS (mainly because it doesn't use DOS), and
interfaces very well to commercial packages. So available technology has
already surpassed the juvenile use restrictions that permiate KA9Q NOS.
---
Steve N5OWK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 05:39:53 PDT
From: "Jeffrey D. Angus" <jangus@skyld.tele.com>
Subject: Geeze
To: tcp-digest@ucsd.edu
Gerard playing net.cop and people trying to patent Phil's published works?
Whats next?
Somebody suggested that CW ID be manditory for all packet stations so they
can be identified easily when they cause interference. (Oct 93 QST)
Thank you everyone for the continued entertainment value in Amateur Radio.
73 es GM from Jeff
--
Amateur: WA6FWI@WA6FWI.#SOCA.CA.USA.NA | "It is difficult to imagine our
Internet: jangus@skyld.tele.com | universe run by a single omni-
US Mail: PO Box 4425 Carson, CA 90749 | potent god. I see it more as a
Phone: 1 (310) 324-6080 | badly run corporation."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 16:21:01 +0100 (BST)
From: kelvin@thed.usup.uk22.bull.co.uk (Kelvin J. Hill)
Subject: Geeze
To: jangus@skyld.tele.com (Jeffrey D. Angus)
> Whats next?
>
> Somebody suggested that CW ID be manditory for all packet stations so they
> can be identified easily when they cause interference. (Oct 93 QST)
>
Err... In the UK it IS mandatory for all packet stations to use CW ID!
Some people ignore this, but it's in the license. I think you may use voice
ident as an alternative to CW, but no-one would dream of that.
> Thank you everyone for the continued entertainment value in Amateur Radio.
>
Most of us aren't laughing.... (CW ID specifically).
Kelvin. (g1emm)
--
Kelvin J. Hill - BULL HN Information System Ltd, Hounslow, England, UK.
Internet - kelvin@thed.usup.uk22.bull.co.uk | CIX - kelvin@cix.compulink.co.uk
"" kelvin@kelvin.usup.uk22.bull.co.uk | AMPRnet - g1emm@g1emm.ampr.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 16:35:42 +0100
From: Mike Chace <mikec@praxis.co.uk>
Subject: Geeze
To: "Jeffrey D. Angus" <jangus@skyld.tele.com>
>>>>> Regarding Geeze; "Jeffrey D. Angus" <jangus@skyld.tele.com> adds:
Jeffrey> Gerard playing net.cop and people trying to patent Phil's
Jeffrey> published works?
Jeffrey> Whats next?
Jeffrey> Somebody suggested that CW ID be manditory for all packet
Jeffrey> stations so they can be identified easily when they cause
Jeffrey> interference. (Oct 93 QST)
Should this have been Ha Ha Only Serious?
You ought to come to the UK - you'd have no end of entertainment.
CWID every 15 minutes has been mandatory for some time - a side
splittingly hilarious suggestion - I don't think so...
73, Mike (G6DHU)
------------------------------
Date: 29 Sep 1993 11:35:50 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jack Spitznagel <jks@jspitznagel.utmem.edu>
Subject: Geeze
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Hello all...
Jeff writes...
>Whats next?
nuclear war?
>Thank you everyone for the continued entertainment value in Amateur Radio.
Mine too.... but the Garrison Keilor aspect of it is really old!
&73
KD4IZ
Jack Spitznagel | D ivision of Bogometrics,
Team OS/2 | Sancho Panza Institute for
(901) 528-6441 | Advanced Studies
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 12:58:12 MET
From: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com
Subject: hackers alert (final)
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Hello All,
> Dear All,
>
> [ removed the Cc: to "gateways" - I am not supposed to be there... ]
I am, so I add it there.
>
> > The subject has moved some people aparently into a state of .....
> Yes, the contents of my mailbox tells me about the same. Can we call
> this the result of a somewhat uncarefully-worded warning message, and
> get it over with?
yep.
>
> > It was and still is my intention to warn the group (and the gateways group)
> > for a possible attack by "intruders" (lower live forms ???? (not my quote))
> Mine, and it's "life". I fully agree with warnings about possible abuse
> of the AMPR gateways - they're too valuable to losse them because of any
> kind of hacks. I am on *your* side here!
>
> > We do have a record of break ins by people using a combination of CB and
> > Internet, witch we have to defend ourselves to. PERIOD.
> Ehh, "CB" as in "CBnXXX" callsigns, or as in "CB network people" ?
Yes, CB0CBM , but those letters change easely, no official records are kept.
> I know there is a gateway in Canada somewhere, which was "used" by
> some CBnet people. I found out, notified the gw operators, and sent
> the offending CB'ers a note about "not to abuse the AMPR.ORG machines
> just for fooling around!" Most of them *did* listen to me. Again, I
> am on *your* side of the problem.
good (but (see later))
>
> > Even well respected contributors make ( ?? ) mistakes, sample: the inclusion
> > of a non existing nl.ampr.org in networks in Linux.
> That is "nl.cb.ampr.org", I put that in, and I take care of forwarding
> that domain.
You forwarding for something Non Exsisting???
Then it is intrusion into ampr.org after all.......
Only legal (that is: Radio Amateurs with a Licence (to do so) might
add gateways to each other and any outside contact / way is disallowed.
That means you are not on "our" side.
> I did have a short discussion with Brian (Kantor) about
> this, and got a "CB is not for real, so no .cb subdomain. Convince
> me if you think I am wrong!" reply.
You have NOTHING to do in the ampr.org name space, I do fully agree with
Birian on this. You took a part of a name space without permission of the
owner !!!!
>
> So, I dropped the subdomain (I don't have the time to convince short-
> sighted people of their being wrong, I applied for a domain of our own.
> I am using a subdomain of my own network (.mugnet.org, 145.71) as an
> interim right now. Not pretty, but not my fault - I tried.
You where wrong (and short sighded) (mugnet = Mallicious User Group ????)
>
> > Please calm down every one.
> Gnah. Looking at the "votes" in my mailbox, I think I can safely
> state that I *am* allowed to be on this group, and on a lot of others
> too. Does anyone want to see a summary?
>
> Note that this is NOT a "choose for pa0gri or nl0wlt" voting, it's
> much more a "do we allow CBnet people on our groups or not?" thing
> now, as it should. I do not have anything against Gerard personally
> (he should remember me if he digs *deep* in his past...), and I am
> *not* offended by the "Hacker Alert" warning (although it *was*
> worded uncarefully) - Ijust want to be allowed to share in the
> discussions on this and some other groups....
You are welcome in any discussion, just be carefull how you present youselfs.
>
> To make us all feel better: votes to: <waltje@sunsite.unc.edu>
No votes nessesary.........
>
> (this is definitely *not* a hacker's network - your votes are safe ;->
>
> Last but not least: calm down, everyone. There's no need for a fight...
>
> Cheers,
> Fred NL0WLT
>
Subject settled. All sed. Discussion closed. Flames OFF.
Regards, Gerard.
----
OFF is often the final stage of many live forms.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 12:39:22 PDT
From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Subject: hackers alert (final)
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
>> I did have a short discussion with Brian (Kantor) about
>> this, and got a "CB is not for real, so no .cb subdomain. Convince
>> me if you think I am wrong!" reply.
That is not what I said, nor is that the reason for the reply that you
did get. Your deliberate misquoting of me does NOTHING to enhance your
standing with this group.
There are no delegated subdomains of ampr.org.
That is because there is no mechanism for reliable delegation of
subdomains.
This is not likely to change until the AMPRNet becomes a connected
working network.
It is not a political decision, it is not an administrative decision,
it is not a result of shortsightedness, nor of willful obstinacy.
It is a technical fact of our existence.
- Brian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 11:43:23 EST
From: kz1f@kz1f.hdn.legent.com
Subject: I lied
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Despite what I said earlier, I feel compelled to say the following, largely by
way of explaination/apology.
Since my involvement in NOS, several years now, I had never seen any
restrictive use clause, either at run time or in the code proper. I have heard
abt this sort of discussion on and off prior to my involvment.
Further, it had been my understanding that NOS, in all its flavors, was by and
large a corrobrative effort. The list of 'contributors' is huge. With the
exception of the kernel functions proper, everbody has been everywhere.
I know in law, there are precidence on intermingled property, I dont recall
the decisions but that leads me to my next point.
I didnt get a sense that this conversation was anything other than purely
academic. I never got mail from Phil or Gerard or Johan laying claim to
their piece of it. (I did see one from Mike <g>).
As for the charge of 'disrespectful and dispicable', that goes up sideways.
I think what Phil did by way of multitasking DOS is nothing short of brilliant,
that should have been patented and marketted. It might have put a big dent in
Bill Gates fortunes. There are other pieces of NOS I think are really fine work
as well, by several individuals. I certainly meant no disrespect to these
folks. What I have a problem with is 'hero worship'. In the mid 80's when I
first got involved with packet, in RI, Hank's (w0rli) alias was something like
'Oh Master', prior to FCC allowing digital communications (in the 70's) their
was the predecessor to rli code written by Ward Christenson and (I believe)
Tom(or Phil) Peterson. This was virtually identical, except for it was twisted
pair based. People familiar with the lineage of the code knew where it
originated. This is nothing against Hank either, hero worship is an individual
thing. I think there is alot of good technology in NOS, contributed by several
people. I sense those getting into a lather over ownership are not the
contributors.
So (here comes the apology part), to Phil, Gerard, Johan, Thomas, Mike,
and Kathy, I certainly apologize if you feel my comments were calous,
disrespectful and dispicable. I applaud your work and efforts and I, for one,
have no interest or desire to claim original work, except for those parts I
did, and even then I would only get offended if someone else took credit for
having authored it, which I havent seen happen to any of our code.
Nor do I sense any of you are offended.
-Walt
**********************************************************
* kz1f - Walt Corey * In the absence of a *
* The views expressed are my own * formal system, *
* * an informal system *
* * develops *
**********************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 93 9:40:15 BST
From: Jan Schiefer <jas@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: NOS versions
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.EDU
Steve Sampson <ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil> wrote:
> Could someone please list all the owners of claimed copyrights to the KA9Q
> NOS package. That is, list each module, and the claimants. Then list all the
> rights that are reserved by each claimant, for every version of NOS :-)
Speaking of lists: Is there anybody trying to record all the NOS versions
and enhancements, made by various parties? I have stopped long ago
trying to understand whether to choose QNOS-1.56b over ZZ1ABC-NOS2.5
or LNOS.AA9ZYX-2.5beta, and why. If anybody *does* understand it: Here is
your change to become immortal!
Remember the days when NOS was NET and it was compiled with Aztec C? Few
people could compile it, few people made changes, it was sooooo easy.
Anyway, I'll stay with Phil's base code or WAMPES, because I don't know
what the others are. And trying to find out might be a waste of time.
Your mileage may vary.
Cheers,
Jan
--
Jan Schiefer, g0trr, jas@hplb.hpl.hp.com, HP Labs Bristol, UK. +44 272 228344
Finally, I discovered a way to create lines longer then 80 columns, even on term
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 22:46:22 MDT
From: kd6oat@kd6oat.ampr.org
Subject: smtp problem
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
I'm running KA9Q NOS (911229(WG7J v1.10x1) and have, until
recently, been having great success using smtp to send and receive
mail thru my local gateway, uugate.wa7slg.ampr.org . The
return address for my mail is kd6oat%kd6oat@uugate...etc. This
seems to work fine. Recently, however, I sent a request to arrl.org
and left the return address of kd6oat@kd6oat.ampr.org and now for
the past 5 days, I have been receiving smtp attempts about every
10 minutes, 24 hours a day from 128.145.228.2 which I can only
guess is a server for arrl. For some reason, I don't receive the
mail but the smtp attempts lock up sockets until the system
crashes. Evidently, something different is taking place when internet mail is
sent directly to me instead of thru my gateway.
Is there a way I can block selected incoming smtp's ? Is there a
change I can make at this end so that I can receive the mail that
the server is attempting to send ? Any suggestions offered will
be appreciated. ...
ZDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD?
3 221100 73, Ken Adlam kd6oat.ampr.org [44.40.1.40] 001122 3
@DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 12:43:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Sampson <ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil>
Subject: Why I hate patents
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
> brian@nothing.ucsd.edu says:
> this way the party granted the patent and the parties challenging it go
> to court, rather than the patent office.
I'm convinced that capitalism is a failure and now fully support President
Clintons socialist programs. Capitalism was certainly fun, but the burdens of
the police state it requires to protect it have become too much for us. With
lawyers (infesting the state capitals) creating laws to feed the lawyers at
a record pace (and court houses getting deeper and deeper in case load, and
prisons overflowing with petty criminals) we are ripe for a total collapse.
We see the walls crumbling all over the country. The youth are in the streets,
the old people are locked up in their homes, and the middle aged are playing
with their cellular telephones and watching Rush.
Here's my solution and the only reason I'm still smiling:
1) Bomb and destroy law offices and their secretaries.
2) Behead lawyers on sight, rape is authorized, wives optional.
3) Behead PAC members and their first born male child.
4) Behead political activists (closet lawyers) for religious causes.
When we get these paper hangers down to less than 50% of the total number of
policemen in this country, then we will be on our way. Then we can start
reducing the number of policemen and police agencies (City, County, State,
Federal, Quasi, Private).
We can't expect government to work when we have the numbers of lawyers we do
today. Any government agency is damned if they do, and damned if they don't,
because lawyers on either side (and I mean plural, i.e., gangs) will bury them
in paper or assasinate them in the popular liberal press. I think any agency
that finds a way to put lawyers on lawyers should be complemented. It's a
gross failure of government, but who can really expect government to work
under these conditions. They'll probably make a law that says it's illegal
for Patent Office to do this, 50 bucks says they do.
---
Steve N5OWK
"Kill them all, let God sort them out" - Military Doctrine
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #253
******************************
******************************