🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LOIC.90Aug7122708@adesign.uucp> loic@adesign.uucp (Loic Dachary) writes:

   >From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
   >
   >Fine. This means that you don't give away anything from any European
   >UNIX group to someone/something that is not a member. (In other words,
   >non-members of the UKUUG don't get the benefits of membership without
   >paying for them.) The service you get from UKnet is supplied by UKC,
   >not the UKUUG or any other UNIX User group. The stuff that the UKUUG
   >is trying to protect are things like newsletters, tape distributions
   >and conference proceedings, not netnews.
   >
	   Fine for newsletters, conference. But not tapes. As long as
   they contain GNU software, UKUUG have no right to prevent the copy
   of part of their content.

Nobody is trying to impose such restrictions!

	   As all the tapes contain data more or less
   public-domain/freeware/shareware, the policy of UKUUG is
   questionnable. Are they trying to get more members or do they want
   to make the public-domain/freeware/shareware more available ?

The UKUUG is trying to do both: if fact making free/PD software
available is one way of encouraging new members.

Certain EUUG/UKUUG tapes are restricted to members. Some require AT&T
licences while others may have been made available by the authors on
condition that the software was only distributed to UKUUG or EUUG
members. Nobody in their right mind could possibly consider that the
membership clause had any bearing on stuff that was freely available
from other sources. [i.e. The software that find its way on to EUUG
and UKUUG conference tapes these days.] As I said before, the GNU
copyleft probably makes any subsequent restrictions invalid (assuming
anyone was trying to enforce them, which, in the UKUUG's case, nobody is).

There are other EUUG/UKUUG benefits which should not be passed to
non-members that have to be protected by the clause which has caused
this debate. These benefits include discounts on UNIX user group
events in the UK, the rest of Europe and elsewhere. (Many national
groups have reciprocal arrangements covering conferences, workshops
and the like.) Other benefits are free or reduced subscriptions to
UNIX publications, discounts on kit like Trailblazers and so on.
Sometimes suppliers will offer extras - better support, source code,
reduced prices - purely to UKUUG or EUUG members. Clearly, these
benefits should not be passed on to people who ar not members.

To get back to the issue of the UKUUG and free software, let me make
one thing clear. The UKUUG bought a large (1Gb?) disk to be used for
an info-server and software archive at Imperial College. Almost all the
GNU software can be found on that disk. The archive can be used by
anyone for the cost of a UUCP or X.25 call to Imperial College. If the
UKUUG had any intention of restricting software distribution, why
would they have paid for a disk for an "open" archive server?

I will also repeat my previous remark about reasonableness. It would
be absurd for anyone to attempt to restrict distribution of free or PD
software which is widely available. The UKUUG is run by reasonable
people who fully appreciate the absurdity of such restrictions. It's
therefore not something that the UKUUG wants to get involved in. The
UKUUG does not even consider this sort of thing has anything to do
with them.

On the other hand, the UKUUG would get upset if a member was buying
say Trailblazers at UKUUG discount and then selling them at a profit
to non-members. It is that sort of thing that the membership clause is
all about: not what happens to GNU software.

		Jim