🚀 go-pugleaf

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

Piercarlo makes the same mistake as many other has in thinking that
UKnet (the UK bit of Usenet) and the UKUUG are one and the same. The
two are qite separate, though they share some common interests. UKnet
members have to be institutional members of the UKUUG. This is so that
UKnet can function as a 'closed user group' and thus be allowed to
provide value added network services over the public telephone network
without incurring the wrath of British Telecom and possible
prosecution under various Telecommunications Acts.

   In the UKUUG form I read "all the material received from the UKUUG, the
   EUUG, or any other national group of the EUUG shall be used solely by me
   (or other persons at my institution if this is an institutional
   membership). No material, in whatever form, shall be passed to anyone
   not covered by my membership of the UKUUG without prior written consent
   from the UKUUG." (this followed by the usual verbiage that forbids
   public criticism of the organization, which verbiage is very common in
   this country).

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.

   In the UKNET form I read "Before a new site is added to the network UKC
   must check the uniqueness of the name in a world context and a copy of
   this form, signed by the news site, must be with us" and "Your
   organisation must agree to disconnet any site from the network if
   requested to do so by staff at UKC".

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

This is 100% wrong. UKnet revenue from the quarterly bills sent to
members is paid to UKC and covers their overheads - line rental,
staff, machine usage and so on. It is provided as a not for profit,
best effort service. The UKUUG don't enter the picture at all. Indeed,
the annual turnover of the UKUUG is at least an order of magnitude
less than UKnet's turnover.

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

No. You can do what you like with netnews. Just about the only thing
that UKC will get upset about is if a site provides a news feed and
doesn't tell UKC. (i.e. Some site is freeloading on the backs of a
service funded by others who pay their share of the costs of
maintaining that service.) This is why UKC insist that you promise to
disconnect any site connected to you, if asked. The offending site
will probably not be paying their dues to UKC, and therefore
jeopardising the whole basis of UKC's service.

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

The UKUUG and UKnet are run by reasonable people. Restricting the
distribution of free software is not a reasonable act and is most
certainly not the sort of thing that these people would want to do.
[The membership wouldn't stand for it even it were the case.] The
conditions which do exist are there to ensure the survival of both
institutions. It's a gross distortion to imply that these conditions
have any bearing on the distribution of GNU software. One could also
argue that the GNU copyleft prevents anyone making such ridiculous
restrictions in the first place.

		Jim