🚀 go-pugleaf

I am replying here to a number of comments on my article where I
observed that since both UKUUG and UKNET do not allow members to pass on
to non members meterials of any type received thru them, they are both
violating the GPL when they give FSF sw to a member, and that they
should stop doing so.

Most of the replies have been out of order; they have discussed the
(IMNHO bizarre) rationales of this restriction, not the restriction
itself, which remains.

On 6 Aug 90 12:36:50 GMT, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) said:
jim> From jim@cs.strath.ac.uk Mon Aug 13 12:34:45 1990

jim> In article <PCG.90Aug3150143@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
jim> (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

jim> Piercarlo makes the same mistake as many other has in thinking that
jim> UKnet (the UK bit of Usenet) and the UKUUG are one and the same. The
jim> two are qite separate, though they share some common interests. UKnet
jim> members have to be institutional members of the UKUUG.

Bizarrely enough, institutional memberships cost *way more* than other
memberships. Even if you are not interested in UKUUG (which is a pity,
because they are actually a pretty good group), or you already have an
existing individual or student membership, you have to fork out a lot of
extra money, on top of that, for institutional membership, which is on
top of any money owed the UKNET itself. Mandatory co-membership, and of a
specific type as to that, does not strike me as leaving UKNET and UKUUG
as quite separate.

jim> This is so that
jim> UKnet can function as a 'closed user group' and thus be allowed to
jim> provide value added network services over the public telephone network
jim> without incurring the wrath of British Telecom and possible
jim> prosecution under various Telecommunications Acts.

Why cannot UKNET provide the same 'closed user group' status? Why cannot
British Telecom give a license (after all they use the UKNET themselves...)?

Incidentally, a lot of sites in this country (GB) provide VANs (every
single site that runs UUCP gets involved in switching, that is is
absolutely forbidden to unregulated businesses), but nobody cares.
What worries me is that the UKUUG and UKNET are legalistic enough on
these issues, then sombody tells me "don't worry about waht you sign,
our intentions are fine".

jim> Fine. This means that you don't give away anything from any European
jim> UNIX group to someone/something that is not a member.

This means that if I buy a book or any publication from the UKUUG, for
which I assume I have paid the full cost by way of membership fee and
price, I am not allowed to let a non member read it, not to mention sell
or give it away. This includes say GNU manuals, for example.

jim> (In other words, non-members of the UKUUG don't get the benefits
jim> of membership without paying for them.)

I don't understand. I would have already paid for all the materials that
the UKUUG has given me. The UKUUG loses nothing if I transfer my copy to
another party. And surely letting other people read my copy is not going
to deprive UKUUG of a lot of revenue, given that institutional
(collective) memberships do exist, and they probably rob the UKUUG of
much more money than letting an individual or student member let his
friends read the UKUUG materials or make copies of their tapes.

jim> The service you get from UKnet is supplied by UKC,
jim> not the UKUUG or any other UNIX User group. The stuff that the UKUUG
jim> is trying to protect are things like newsletters, tape distributions
jim> and conference proceedings, not netnews.

Precisely. The fact is that the UKUUG does not distribute netnews... As
to the rest this is not just like copyrighting papers (the ACM does it,
and then lets everybody copy them for non profit purposes, for example),
the UKUUG forbids even giving away the *originals*, or letting non
members read them.

In the same vein one cannot give away copies of a tape obtained from
UKUUG, and this is in direct violation of the GPL. Similarly the UKNET
forwarding articles containing GPL material to another site which is not
a member.

If this is not hoarding...

pcg> The ostensible reason is to allow the UKC gateway to recoup their costs
pcg> and for the UKNET and UKUUG to share the costs of running themselves
pcg> among the largest possible number of members, by disallowing members to
pcg> redistribute to non members (in other words UKNET is a not-for-profit
pcg> Clarinet).

jim> This is 100% wrong. UKnet revenue from the quarterly bills sent to
jim> members is paid to UKC and covers their overheads - line rental,
jim> staff, machine usage and so on. It is provided as a not for profit,
jim> best effort service.

Well, I think you confirm 100% of what I have written; the reason for
which UKNET (just like the UKUUG) change fees to to cover the cost of
running their operation. Nothing wrong about that, I think.

Clarinet also provide a service that disallows customers from passing on
material to non customers, precisely for the same reasons. The fact that
they make a profit too out if it is irrelevant here, and I have no
problem with that either.

jim> The UKUUG don't enter the picture at all.

The UKNET and UKUUG organizations coincidentally use the same
philosophy, and with the same motivations. That's why I was mentioning
them together. Also, the mandatory co-membership, and a whole lot of
formal and informal links, tend to make the UKUUG and UKNET less
seaprate than some say.

pcg> The consequence is to forbid any redistribution of GNU materials
pcg> received from the UKUUG or via the UKNET news network.

jim> No. You can do what you like with netnews. Just about the only thing
jim> that UKC will get upset about is if a site provides a news feed and
jim> doesn't tell UKC.

Just a moment. Pause. You mean that I can do what I like the contents of
news, *except* :-) give copies of it to a third party? You have a very
strange notion of 'you do what you like'.

jim> (i.e. Some site is freeloading on the backs of a
jim> service funded by others who pay their share of the costs of
jim> maintaining that service.)

Again the ostensible reason.  I don't see any freeloading here, in the
sense you say. As a site paid for the news they received, even if they
fed another site UKUUG would not lose any revenue at all.

What currently happens is that sites that are not prepared to act as
feeds do get subsidized by those that are prepared to act as feeds.

jim> There's nothing in the conditions of membership of either the UKUUG or
jim> UKnet to prevent the redistribution of GNU or other free software.
jim> (Not that this could be stopped even if there were such clauses...)

Taken literally, the phrases I have quoted amount to this. Maybe the
intention is different, but one signs a written statement, not an
intention.

jim> It's a gross distortion to imply that these conditions
jim> have any bearing on the distribution of GNU software.

I would ask you to reread the following two lines of yours:

jim> Fine. This means that you don't give away anything from any European
					       ^^^^^^^^
jim> UNIX group to someone/something that is not a member.

which I reckon are a reasonable summary of the UKUUG and UKNET policies.

On 4 Aug 90 15:45:18 GMT, mike@chorus.fr (Mike Bayliss) said:
mike> From mike@chorus.fr Mon Aug 13 12:34:56 1990

pcg>  The ostensible reason is to allow the UKC gateway to recoup their costs
pcg>  and for the UKNET and UKUUG to share the costs of running themselves
pcg>  among the largest possible number of members, by disallowing members to
pcg>  redistribute to non members (in other words UKNET is a not-for-profit
pcg>  Clarinet).

mike> "Ostensible" is a very loaded word - it implies you think there is
mike> another reason - what?

I'd really like to know. What I observe is that the obligation to take
on a fairly expensive institutional membership of UKUUG and the policy
of subisidizing non feed sites by feed sites suit very well largish
organizations, and effectively shut out smaller ones and individuals.

It is also very strange (and very rare) that UKUUG forbids me from
letting others even *read* the materials which I have paid for, but only
if I am an individual or student member; institutional membership is
collective, and any number of people can read or copy UKUUG materials if
they work for an institutional member.

pcg> The consequence is to forbid any redistribution of GNU materials
pcg> received from the UKUUG or via the UKNET news network. Free software?

mike> There is nothing in the paragraphs you post to actually support this.
mike> Although you have to be a UKUUG member to be part of UKNET, I do not
mike> see a claim anywhere that material received via UKNET is supplied to
mike> you by the UKUUG (or EUUG).

There is no such claim; but the UKUUG and the UKNET both restrict
further redistribution.

The UKUUG states the restriction explicitly; the UKNET instead forbid me
from feeding news, such as the entire gnu.all hierarchy, or any of the
comp.sources.all group, that contain free software, to other sites,
which amounts to the same thing.

mike> This is an old argument that I don't think ever got resolved when it was
mike> last debated. Unfortunately, most of the people who use those copyrights
mike> are from the US where news feeds are free/cheap. Although they
mike> might solve a problem in the US (i.e. somebody making commercial
mike> gain from an article),

The issue of commercial gain is entirely irrelevant. Actually the FSF
encourages commercial gain using GPL sw, as long as no restrictions are
put on its further circulation. I do know that UKUUG and UKNET are non
profit and actually largely volunteer efforts.

mike> they do not address the problem of sites like the European backbones (not
mike> just ukc) that must pass on some of the costs of receiving the article.

But restricting further distribution has nothing to do with this issue.
It may have to do with the fact that most sites do not want to bother
becoming feeds, but want to share the benefit with sites that are
prepared to do it. Unfortunately this requires violating the GPL.

On 7 Aug 90 08:22:58 GMT, dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) said:
dww> From dww@stl.stc.co.uk Mon Aug 13 12:35:28 1990

dww> In article <PCG.90Aug3150143@odin.cs.aber.ac.uk> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
dww> (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

pcg> ... the UKNET gateway should check and verify that no such articles,
pcg> especially those bearing a GNU copyright, pass thru it. 

dww> As has already been pointed out, Piercarlo, in his continuing inability to
dww> understand how the net works in the UK

Maybe it's you not reading carefully, like most, the forms you sign and
the copying licenses you are given.

dww> (he's been posting distorted views
dww> of how the net works for ages -- I'd think it was ignorance but he's been
dww> a UK net user for long enough to know better),

This is crass. I have only quoted passages from the membership forms of
both organizations, and both organizations forbid redistribution. Since
this is contrary to the GPL, GPL materials should either be exempt or
not distributed by the UKUUG or by UKNET.

dww> has confused the UKUUG with the UKnet, as run from ukc.

I have not dared do anything like this; I have pointed out only that it
is interesting that BOTH (quite separately, maybe) insist that materials
supplied by them should not be passed on to third parties that are not
members.

dww> The UKnet exists specifically to pass things
dww> on -- in both directions -- and the only restriction is that all sites fed
dww> via ukc must share ukc's costs in providing the service.

This is the ostensible *purpose* of the restriction. The restriction is
actually that material that has passed thru ukc should not be given to a
non member of UKNET. There is a large difference between the two
concepts, even if somebody maintains it is wholly unintentional.

dww> In another article, Peircarlo claimed that in the UK sites don't feed each
dww> other on a mutual help basis but may only get news directly from ukc.

This is a joke. Quote me on this if you can. For example, I am only too
well aware that the site I am posting from is not fed direct from ukc.

What I actually wrote was that one effect of the inability to freely
redistribute UKNET materials, including GNU ones, is that sites do not
have a monetary incentive to be feeds and thus the UKNET (and the whole
EUNET) tends to be much more tree shaped than the well connected USEnet
mesh.

On 7 Aug 90 03:56:36 GMT, njw@athena.mit.edu (Nicholas John Williams) said:

njw> The GNU license makes allowances for distribution costs, however. 
njw> And just like paying for the price of the tape, 
njw> paying for a newsfeed is a distribution cost -

You misunderstand me here; I do not object to the idea of paying for
getting news; I object to the idea that once I have paid, I cannot pass
copies of their contents to third parties. The GPL allows for copying
fees, as long as there are not restrictions to *further* redistribution.

On 8 Aug 90 11:25:29 GMT, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) said:

jim> In article <2164@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> zmacx07@doc.ic.ac.uk (Simon E
jim> Spero) writes:

spero> [ ... a scheme that allows unrestricted circulation of news,
spero> yet covers the news costs for ukc ... ]

jim> This is unrealistic and wholly impractical.

jim> 1) UKC have to find about quarter of a million pounds each year to
jim> cover their costs. In your scheme, UKC would have to recover this from
jim> whoever connected directly to them.

This is not really what Spero meant... but:

jim> At present, that would mean 10 sites getting annual news/mail bills
jim> of 25,000 pounds or so. Who'd want to pay that kind of money?

Well, why not ask? I am not too sure this would be impossible. A
commercial service, maybe, e.g. BIX; some JANET wide service... Anybody
that could recoup the cost downstream. If any of these wanted to run on
the same lines as UKNET does now, let them. As of now, There Is No
Choice. One could set up another ukc-style gateway, but that would be
inessential duplication of expenditure.

jim> 2) Many sites feed news and mail without worrying too much about
jim> billing people.

Because they are large organizations that do not bother about a few
hundred pounds a month, but do bother about billing for that small
amount of money.

jim> What do I do if
jim> one chooses not to pay or wants a reduced fee because they don't take
jim> all the newsgroups or just have email? What if a site says that X% of
jim> its news comes from another site, so they'll only pay me for the
jim> 100-X% of news that I've sent them? How do I measure or verify this?

Well, a news administrator already keeps statistics even more detailed
than these for tuning purposes; unless, as it is so common, they fon't
pay the bills, of course:

jim> Life's too short to worry about this stuff. I'm not a beancounter and
jim> have no desire to become one. Your scheme would force people like me
jim> to count packets and generate bills.

Uh uh. The Other People's Money syndrome. In its full glory. And damn the
poor souls that have to bother with bean counting.

jim> That's another nail in the coffin:
jim> I'd stop feeding news to avoid getting involved in beancounting, so
jim> what would my news and mail feeds do then?

But every poor idiot that has to pay bills out of their (or their own
company's pocket) would jump at the occasion of replacing you, and
sharing the cost of the newsfeed with somebody else.

On 8 Aug 90 11:56:57 GMT, jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid) said:

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

jim> Certain EUUG/UKUUG tapes are restricted to members.

*all* the UKUUG ones, according to the membership clauses.

jim> Nobody in their right mind could possibly consider that the
jim> membership clause had any bearing on stuff that was freely available
jim> from other sources.

This is not what I read in the membership form. People sign forms, not
other people's right minds. 

jim> There are other EUUG/UKUUG benefits which should not be passed to
jim> non-members that have to be protected by the clause which has caused
jim> this debate.

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

So, *materials* from the UKUUG, including newsletters and tapes and
proceedings, should not be read by non members, because this is the only
way to say "the arrangements made for the benefit of UKUUG or UKNET
members are personal and not transferable?".

Maybe this discrepancy between the actual wording and the ostensible
reason could be removed, couldn't it?

jim> On the other hand, the UKUUG would get upset if a member was buying
jim> say Trailblazers at UKUUG discount and then selling them at a profit
jim> to non-members.

You can write things differently, if you care, with less intriguingly
worded clauses. Notice also that the TB discount example is bogus; the
TB is supplied by a company, not by the UKUUG, and the seller can easily
impose a condition that the TB be not resold say within one year, or
limit the buyer to one TB only, or whatever else they want.  Similar
situations can be most flexibly dealt with on a case by case basis, by
the supplier involved.

But I am speaking here of materials supplied by the UKUUG itself.

jim> It is that sort of thing that the membership clause is
jim> all about: not what happens to GNU software.

Write it down then like that, instead of telling me all your good
intentions.  Or should I believe you instead when in an earlier article
wrote:

jim> The stuff that the UKUUG is trying to protect are things like
jim> newsletters, tape distributions and conference proceedings,
jim> not netnews.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi           | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber.cs@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk