>>>>> Dean W. Cooper Nov 18, 1988 1:33pm This discussion was taken off of Magpie BBS in New York City. It is the fourth part of the discussion, the first part being uploaded as "PKSEA-M.ARC", the second part as "PKSEA-M2.ARC", and the third as "PKSEA-M3.ARC" Magpie can be reached at: 212/420-0527 +---------------------------------------------------------+ | NOTE! NOTE! | | -- Of special importance is the last two messages in | | this file. Make sure you read them. | +---------------------------------------------------------+ From GRANT ELLSWORTH Msg #32958 *COMPUTERS* To STEVE MANES Thu Nov 10, 1988 10:52pm (Rcvd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEA vs PK vs Users vs Authors??? I have question ... still not really clear after thousands ,,, nay ,,, hundreds of thousands of bytes of threads, exchanges, meanderings ... etc Q: Is it SEA's contention that: Copyright infringement exists with respect to the publickly available ARC sources if reader employs contents in any way whatsoever? Example: 1. I READ ARC source code, print off listing from downloaded file 2. I use a section apparently abstracted / revised from other sources, such as ARCLZW.C and COMPRESS.C ... in the following manner ... I make my own C program employing some, but not all, of the techniques illustrated there-in to produce LZW type compression I convert my C code by hand to another machine / opsys architecture where C compiler is not available ... and I hand-construct an LZW algorithm very similar logically speaking to code found in both ARCLZW and COMPRESS.C ... in the target's assembler system I reconstruct the code as optimized and modified / enhanced back on IBM PC/MSDOS using C or whatever ... 3. I make non-IBMPC program commercial in an environment where SEA intends to target .ARC stuff 4. I make IBMPC varient also commercial ... 2 machines shake hands with compression streams even though there is a very different data/byte/bit architecture 5. I make IBM PC varient produce .ARC somewhat compatible files ... and extract stuff from them ... etc... Is this a copyright infringement? Is it really piracy? Does this mean that once I, or someone else, has read, or manipulated ARC sources in machine readable form, subject to a copyright infringement suit if we produce a competitive product --- even though not one line of original ARC source code was used in final results? That is, is SEA saying: "Once you read or manipulate our publickly provided code in any fashion, you cannot produce a compression/archiver software product of any kind without our directly profitting from it in some agreed on fashion and you can not compete in anything we deem our market!" Is SEA's policy that: "Once you know what any of our software does and you have any basis for familiarity with our software, you just commited copyright sin if you produce anything that does what we do and compete with us in our market!" I am assuming in the preceding that NO written or oral authorization was obtained concerning the viewing and mainpulating of SEA ARC sources. If this is not real clear, I'll try again. It is this issue which I think is one of the 2 hubs of the SEA vs PK issue. The other is the trademark/product name issue ... and here SEA has some valid grounds to squawk ... I just regret that the folks involved, both SEA and PKWARE did not have the funds to bring this to a fully legally resolved conclusion. I regret even more, that the process was so damn financially costly and potentially costly for getting a clear litigation. and resolution. Anyway, a response to my hypothetical and realistic illustration would be appreciated. Grant From STEVE MANES Msg #32968 *COMPUTERS* To GRANT ELLSWORTH Thu Nov 10, 1988 11:44pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't answer that but I've marked your message Special for Thom. From DEAN COOPER Msg #33493 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Mon Nov 14, 1988 9:18am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Davenport left the folowing message to me as he had a comment on the above message I left: <> The "sources of reference" mentioned above is taken from the LZ.TXT file that I included along with my stuff so people could tell exactly what I had changed. This is the reference that the original author (Tom Pfau I guess) placed in the accompanying text file. I have never studied SEA's source code and I have no idea what the structure of SEA's arc files is. I guess I want to make sure no one missunderstands: "Mike also includes Tom's original sources and they contain this message:" The word "Tom's" above refers to Tom Pfau, not Thom Henderson If I sound like I am paranoid, I am (smile). The whole issue of SEA/PKWARE is indicitave of the mass confusion and disinformation that occasionally exists in our "legal" system and I just don't want to become one of it's victims. From THOM HENDERSON Msg #33634 *COMPUTERS* To GRANT ELLSWORTH Tue Nov 15, 1988 1:36am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't be sure from one sitting, but it sounds like what you're describing is something that we license for free. In other words, I think the answer is yes, we think we have some control over that, but we don't mind people doing it. Please feel free to contact me at (201) 473-5153 for details. From GRANT ELLSWORTH Msg #33611 *COMPUTERS* To THOM HENDERSON Mon Nov 14, 1988 11:29pm (Rcvd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Question on versions of ARC available at this time ... Thom , I read in the old archivers archive that SEA had been working on an IBM Mainframe version ... I think the msg I saw said something about there being a version for VM/370 in the works. the msg was dated some- time in early 87 ... but I don't remember the date. IS there a VM 370 version available? If so, how much is it selling for? And how current is it (in terms of ibm's current VM service level)? Is there some kind of MVS/370 version? Thx for any info? GE From THOM HENDERSON Msg #33640 *COMPUTERS* To GRANT ELLSWORTH Tue Nov 15, 1988 1:45am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By our standard license terms, if it were available, it would be free. However, of, oh, half a dozen or so, people I know of who've claimed to have been working on a VM 370 version of ARC, exactly zero have reported that they've got it working. I suspect we need to revise our policy such that such people can reasonably expect to make some money for their efforts. But that goes against the grain. Still, based on our own recent experiences, I can't really blame them. PS: That is *NOT* any sort of policy statement! As of this time, any ARC derivative MUST be shareware at the very least, and we really have no plans to change that. From THOM HENDERSON Msg #33633 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Tue Nov 15, 1988 1:31am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Frankly, your messages make it clear that you are not looking for a dialog. You're looking for more oppotunities to indulge in sophistry. On this board, at least (thankfully), you have met with little success. Are you uncertain of our position? Do you request information regarding our position? Are you curious regarding our viewpoint? No, no, and no. You merely wish me to speak so that you may nitpick over my exact wording. Reasonable questions from concerned people I am always willing to answer. You are another matter -- though perhaps I am wrong. You are more than welcome (as is anyone) to call me at (201) 473-5153 during East Coast business hours if you really want to discuss this, man to man. Do you really want a dialog, or are you playing to the gallery? From TOM BETZ Msg #31762 *COMPUTERS* To THOM HENDERSON Thu Nov 3, 1988 1:40am (Rcvd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, Thom, I must admit that I can not wholeheartedly endorse your position here. There seems to be one helluva difference between the performance of Katz's product and yours before you got hold of >his< source code, and his having seen yours seems to have very little to do with what he had done. Frankly, with the historical background of archivers, and the fact that you both used a{ compression algorithm that was well in the PD, the only thing (it appears to me) that you can take Phil down on was the file format itself, and that's a pretty measly point, particularly in light of the commonness of unlicensed file-exchange capabilities among competing >standard commercial< products with price tags >ten to twenty times< the tags you and Katz hung on your products. What you have said looks to me more like a retreat from a weak position than a declaration of victory. I'm sorry, but I'm unimpressed with your virtue. This battle between you two reminds me more and more of the Presidential race... and I'm not quite sure which of you is Bush and which Dukakis. From THOM HENDERSON Msg #33632 *COMPUTERS* To TOM BETZ Tue Nov 15, 1988 1:09am (Rcvd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Waitasec. You think our position is weak because we don't charge more? From TOM BETZ Msg #33686 *COMPUTERS* To THOM HENDERSON Tue Nov 15, 1988 6:54am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thom, you amaze me. You picked the most insignificant point of my entire message to jump on, and ignored the main question. The price you charge is irrelevant. Delete that reference from the above message and read it again. From DEAN COOPER Msg #33696 *COMPUTERS* To THOM HENDERSON Tue Nov 15, 1988 8:20am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thom, you ask, "Do you really want a dialog, or are you playing to the gallery?" The answer is yes, I really do want a constructive reasonable dialog. You also ask: >> Are you uncertain of our position? Do you request information >> regarding our position? Are you curious regarding our viewpoint? The answer to all of these is YES. What can I do but give you my word before God and my country that I really am uncertain of your positions, that I have asked and do request information on your positions, and that I am extremely curious regarding your viewpoints? Perhaps I will give you a call so you can perhaps better see that I am not joking, being insidious, or engaging in sophistry. But this is a public forum and is the appropriate place for our dialog. I don't see why we need to hide our dialog from anybody. Moreover, this message base serves as a public record which is well needed to prevent distortion and gossip. I have received a number of compliments from people for how I have expressed myself here. Here are just two examples: "I would like to publicly thank you for the time and effort you have expended in trying to get to the bottom of the SEA/PKWARE suit. It certainly helps to make the issues better understood." Mike Davenport (Author of MDCD archiver) "In all the discussions on the various BBSes that I've seen, Dean Cooper's comments seem to make the most sense. He has brought up many good points about the suit and directed them to the appropriate people. I have been completely disgusted with Thom Henderson's responses to Dean's questions." Glen Thompson Of course these are self-serving, but my point is that I am not alone in thinking that my questions are reasonable. In short, I am not the only one who would truly like to see your responses. The most basic question is really very simple. You say, "Phil stole our code. Phil is a pirate." All's we ask is, "What exactly did Phil steal? How do you define a pirate?" I recently re-read this entire thread and nobody has answered these questions here. If you know of a BBS that I could go to that has answers to these or any other question that I have raised, please tell me. I, and others, would like some real answers and dialog. Dean W. Cooper From STEVE MANES Msg #33702 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Tue Nov 15, 1988 9:08am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Huh? These folks aren't users here (at least, not under those names). If you really want answers to these questions, why not bird dog Phil Katz to release his sources? That would prove, once and for all, whether or not Phil stole Thom's code. As for me, I'm just tired of the debate. You're of the opinion that justice in this clash rests in the legal technicalities of this point or the next; I see it as one author poaching on land cleared and made prosperous by the other. If SEA had the resources of Lotus or had refused to release a single scrap of it's sources (like PKWARE), it's doubtful that PKARC would have tried for ARC-compatibility. I, for one, don't like the message PKARC sent to authors who might like to publish their sources. It was something Thom didn't have to do but computer users and system administrators everywhere benefited by his decision to do so. As for the legal stuff, PKWARE had its day in court. From GRANT ELLSWORTH Msg #33775 *COMPUTERS* To THOM HENDERSON Tue Nov 15, 1988 6:20pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ re: control over use of ARC sources Thom, I think you addressed the nub of my question. And, I think you'll agree, it is a little gray. And it would get even hazier if the code I described in the hypothetical situation included but was not exclusively limited to, or focused on the ARC stuff itself... Yes. I'd give you all a call to discuss if it were a real-world issue. Let me mull on your reply... I may have some further questions which will clarify the boundaries of this problem. thx again for the reply. Regards, Grant From GRANT ELLSWORTH Msg #33776 *COMPUTERS* To THOM HENDERSON Tue Nov 15, 1988 6:30pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VM/370 - MVS/370 ARC ... The ARC file structure is inherently alien to the IBM mainframe systems, so I'm saddened, but not surprised that an ARC pgm as such for the 370 Architecture is non=existent. I find, however, that Sterling Software is selling a single-file compression utility based on Huffman Squeezing called SHRINK/MVS. Also, IBM itself distributes with its VM/CMS a file compression facilty based on a special run-length-encoding scheme. Re: just to clarify something for us (all readers) what is the boundary between compression stuff which is and the same stuff whichh is not an ARC derivative. From your reply to my other msg, the boundary is a little fuzzy. i.e. is an ARC derivative something that must be accessing and building ARC-type files? Something based on uniquely ARC code? etc.. Any strong views on where the boundaries are? thx again. GE From THOMAS SHIM Msg #33846 *COMPUTERS* To STEVE MANES Wed Nov 16, 1988 12:17am (Rcvd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This might be a stupid question, so forgive me if it is, but ... ... Didn't Phil Katz used to call here? Where is he? From STEVE MANES Msg #33896 *COMPUTERS* To THOMAS SHIM Wed Nov 16, 1988 1:34am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How would I know? I know, you said it was a stupid question :^) From PUYALLUP Msg #33922 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Wed Nov 16, 1988 7:31am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the record, I find your harping a little tedious. From DEAN COOPER Msg #33924 *COMPUTERS* To STEVE MANES Wed Nov 16, 1988 8:15am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Steve, if you will recall a while back somebody mentioned that they had seen files on other systems with the messages from this thread in them. Well I was one of those people who captured the thread in this discussion and uploaded it to two other boards I frequent (Exec-PC and Sound-of-Music). I had no idea that you (or anybody for that matter) could or did claim copyright to the messages. Does this make me a bad guy? I mean, there isn't any copyright message displayed on the messages and people had been capturing threads from all over (CIS included) and passing them around. This debate is really being discussed over multiple boards and I thought it only reasonable to keep people on other BBS's informed. Do you mind if I capture the messages (for this thread only) and upload them to other boards? I always mention that the messages were captured on Magpie and give your phone number. Anyway, the two people I quoted had read the captured messages and then sent me messages from which I quoted. Dean From DEAN COOPER Msg #33925 *COMPUTERS* To STEVE MANES Wed Nov 16, 1988 8:17am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm sorry you've gotten tired of the debate, and I was getting tired too, but I've gotten renewed interest after I saw that SEA had used Phil's code in their new QARC. I left the following message on Sound-of-Music and I think it basically shows why I'm still interested: "SEA may be "fairly" taking advantage of the cross-license agreement they signed with Phil, depending on how one interprets that agreement (which isn't very clear), but it doesn't seem "decent" for a party to claim someone stole their code, and then turn around and use that "stolen" code because they can't duplicate it readily, even if they're "allowed" to do it legally. "Even if Phil was a blatant pirate and stole every conceivable line of code possible from SEA, SEA's use of Phil's code in QARC demonstrates that Phil did indeed create original code that is significant and valuable. Thus, at best, SEA can only claim that Phil stole insignificant parts of their code. Is it "fair" or "decent" then, for a party to say someone stole their Studebaker and lay claim to the Farrari engine that that someone created and put in it? Worse, perhaps Phil didn't even steal a thing, it's just that his car looks similar to a Studebaker. "Perhaps it is "fair game" for someone to use the courts to bully their competition, and take advantage where possible, but I don't think it's decent. "It seems to me that "decent" competition will put the nose-to-the-grindstone and "build a better mousetrap" instead of taking the competition to court (without good reason) and grabbing the competition's mousetrap if possible." Now, you say, >> You're of the opinion that justice in this clash rests in the >> legal technicalities of this point or the next; I see it as one >> author poaching on land cleared and made prosperous by the other. First, I am not at all trying to argue legal technicalities, I am trying to understand and make clear what is or should be the ethical and moral line that delineates a pirate from an author who perhaps just borrows a few insignificant pieces from another author. Certainly, a book author or song writer has as a certain amount of leeway when using ideas and even fragments from another's copyrighted work. They are not automatically barred from ever writing a similar book or song as soon as they read or here a copyrighted work. You see it as Phil poaching on SEA's prosperous work. But good grief, is nobody allowed to compete with SEA? Do you not agree that authors should be allowed to create works similar to SEA's for the sake of competition? Doesn't the question become then, HOW SIMILAR? This is all I've been trying to make clear here. How similar is Phil morally and ethically allowed to make his program to SEA's program?? >> If SEA had the resources of Lotus or had refused to release a >> single scrap of it's sources (like PKWARE), it's doubtful that >> PKARC would have tried for ARC-compatibility. Here, you seem to be saying that if SEA had been big (read: had LARGE legal resources), that Phil wouldn't have dared making his program ARC compatible for fear of being sued. Are you saying then, that SEA is morally and ethically correct to sue Phil just for making his program compatible with their file format? And what if SEA hadn't released their sources, would it have been wrong for Phil to have "reversed-engineered" the file format in that case? Why does every archiver have to have a different file format? Can't we have standards, de facto or otherwise? Don't the users get any consideration? Of course, the same questions apply to the user interface. Are you really saying that programmers who want to be moral and ethical should always use unique file formats and command and option letters in their user interfaces?? If not, then pray tell what is the line?? What are moral and ethical programmers allowed to do?? To me, this matter is a lot more significant then simply did Phil steal Thom's code or not. Thom's action of taking Phil to court is setting, to some extent, moral and ethical precedents and I pray that we could discuss these issues rationally instead of just dropping the matter or refusing to answer (as Thom does). To me, we are morally compelled and responsible to set and define the lines between what is morally and ethically correct from what is not. Dean P.S. You mentioned a letter Phil sent out, do you have it? I would like to see it. From STEVE MANES Msg #33975 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Wed Nov 16, 1988 2:20pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm not sure what the copyright law is with BBS messages. I've heard that there have been some court decisions in the last couple of years that grant the automatic copyright to the message's author. I've also heard that the operator can claim a copyright to the message base if s/he posts a copyright notice to that effect. I did this in the Statement of Policy message under System Bulletins just in case. As regards repostings, my policy has been that the authors know in advance that their messages are being distributed on other boards and that permission be sought from the authors to repost their older messages. That's not a legal statement but a request for consideration for those people who may not want their messages posted elsewhere or, possibly, may not want their presence known outside this board. I don't want to inhibit discussion on my board, which might occur if users were uncomfortable having their stuff posted nationally on unknown message bases in unknown contexts. If my global copyright holds, that's the policy here. For the record, you have my permission to post my messages (the ones I write) so long as they aren't deceptively edited (which I know you wouldn't do). From STEVE MANES Msg #33982 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Wed Nov 16, 1988 2:40pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ You're arguing from both sides of your mouth. You say that there should be some agreed-upon standard in archive formats and then infer that Phil Katz was justified to poach on ARC's turf in the interest of promoting standards. But you don't make any reference to the fact that after PKARC established itself with the IBM world with this "standard" it then corrupted it with unpublished, proprietary changes that essentially locked out thousands of ARC users on other machines. Either a standard IS a standard and is fair game for others to use fairly or it's not. I think it's duplicitous to say, on the one hand, that SEA created a grassroots standard that other authors should be allowed to incorporate and, on the other, grant Phil Katz the right to nuke it. (You say it was a small matter of adding blah() and blahtoo() to the code but how many >users< are qualified to hack compression algorithms?). As regards derivative works in music and literature and computer software, that's an issue for the courts to decide and that's where SEA and PKWARE wound up. If, as an author, you're really concerned about infringing upon someone's copyright then it would seem the only intelligent thing to do would be to avoid cloning that someone's product in the first place. I didn't mention anything about a letter from Phil Katz. I don't know what that's in reference to. From JONATHAN Msg #34078 *COMPUTERS* To STEVE MANES Wed Nov 16, 1988 11:04pm (Rcvd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Can all this ArcTalk be moved to a separate board, or something? It's quite tedious. From PUYALLUP Msg #34173 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Thu Nov 17, 1988 7:39am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Your "tenacity" on this business is tedious. Can't you find something else to think about? (Acid rain? Ocean dumping? The homeless? Child abuse? The AIDS crisis?) From DEAN COOPER Msg #34182 *COMPUTERS* To STEVE MANES Thu Nov 17, 1988 9:45am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, besides You, I, and Thom Henderson, there hasn't been many others contributing very much. Should Thom be asked? I suspect he already assumes his messages will be broadcast to the world. It would be easier if we just made this discussion part of a separate board (as Jonathan suggested) and note that the board is public domain and messages entered in it are subject to broadcast to other systems. What do you think? From DEAN COOPER Msg #34183 *COMPUTERS* To STEVE MANES Thu Nov 17, 1988 9:47am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I didn't make reference to Phil introducing squashing as I would like to first separate two issues here. The first issue is whether or not Phil (or anybody else) is allowed to copy the ARC file format. The second issue is whether or not they're then allowed to modify the file format. Would it be fair for me to say, that you don't mind Phil copying the ARC file format, it's just that you want SEA to retain absolute control over their creation, and that you therefore don't like that Phil "corrupted" it? Thus, the heart of the matter is not that Phil made a compatible program, but that he modified the standard, he invaded their "turf", he corrupted their standard. Ok, you know from our previous messages that I disagree that Phil corrupted their standard, but let's put that aside for a moment. If this is indeed that heart of the matter, then we can get back to it, but let's first clear up some other areas. Let's say that Phil never introduced squashing, is there anything else that bothers you with what he did? Now I know that you (and I too) don't know how much, if anything, that Phil actually stole, but certainly there must be a line here somewhere. Why do the courts have to be the only ones who can set the line? Can't we say what we think is the correct and ethical place for the line? Or perhaps better, at what point would you take somebody (or at least want to take somebody) to court if you thought they had infringed on your copyright? Say you publicly released your code and they created a similar competing program to yours. Would you want to take them to court if you found out they had: A) Obtained a copy of your source. B) Studied your source. C) Incorporated one or two insignificant little pieces. D) Incorporated a few insignificant little pieces. E) Incorporated a few insignificant chunks. F) Incorporated lots of insignificant pieces. G) Incorporated just one significant piece. H) Incorporated a few significant pieces. I) Incorporated lots of your code. J) Copied your code almost verbatim. I would say G, and perhaps F would cause me to want to take them to court, but certainly not A, B, C or D. Do you basically agree with me? You suggest that I "avoid cloning someone's product" in order to avoid infringing on their copyright. Indeed this may be the conservative and smart thing to do. But even still, I don't like the idea that someone can have a de facto standard that nobody dares to be compatible with. This only leads to monopolies. Moreover, it seems awful to make users put up with incompatible programs just because we have to avoid infringements to such an extreme extent. Can't we agree to some basic ethical standards here to avoid everybody writing incompatible programs from now on? Now, let me assume that you at least agree that points A, B, and C should be allowed. Then let's assume for arguments sake that that is all Phil did. So, if all Phil did was A, B, and C above and hadn't introduced squashing, is there anything else that you think SEA has reason to sue for? I mean, at least then we can say, "I don't know how much Phil infringed, but if he did go past D above, then by golly he's a pirate." If we can agree basically on what point Phil had to go past to be a pirate, then we can drop this part of the debate and argue whether squashing was horrible or not, or any other points you may have. Is that not reasonable? Is it un-reasonable for me to ask Thom what point he considers to be the point of infringement? Dean P.S. I'm sorry about that matter with me thinking you said you had got a letter from Phil. I missed what you meant when you said, "I, for one, don't like the message PKARC sent to authors who might like to publish their sources." I gather now what you meant is that you don't like the message Phil's corrupting of the ARC standard sent to authors. From DEAN COOPER Msg #34188 *COMPUTERS* To PUYALLUP Thu Nov 17, 1988 10:18am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All important issues, but this is the COMPUTERS discussion area is it not? I'm sure your at least a user of computer programs if not an author yourself. Is it not important to you then, whether or not every author has to make his program incompatible? You may say, "Sure, but let's not make a federal case out of it." Is that fair to say? But what are message bases for? If we limit all discussions to only surface discussion and never thoroughly dig into any matter, then what are we ever going to accomplish? Sure there's a time and a place for mere chit-chat and idle voicing of opinions, but why can't there also be a place for a thorough discussion. It seems to me that this is only a logistical problem in that this discussion should be moved into its own board, but let's not call thorough discussion the problem. If there is something in the way that Magpie is designed that forces users to put up with "tedious" discussions that they don't care about, then perhaps you could think of a modification to the design to help alleviate this problem and offer the suggestion to Steve. But it strikes me the wrong way to discourage thorough discussions as the solution to the problem. Dean From GRANT ELLSWORTH Msg #34189 *COMPUTERS* To DEAN COOPER Thu Nov 17, 1988 10:59am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Narrowing the issues and participants ... Seems to me that the arguments and discussions at this point are exercises in fingerpointing and cross-justifications. The issues are not getting resolved. Seems to me that there are 2 issues (or sets of issues) here: 1. Did PK really pirate SEA's stuff in an illegal or unethical manner? Only God, Phil Katz's conscience, and maybe SEA (THom Henderson and Andy Foray) know for sure ... and none have been talking/writing or introducing real candidate evidence. Dean Cooper, Steve Manes, and other parties cannot resolve this issue for anybody. IT's just like beating a corpse. 2. Where does SEA's claim on exclusivity on ARC code, techniques, etc., end, and the public's begin ... This may be covered in the copyright laws, but it is the SEA principals --- T.H. and A.F. --- who really determine the beginnings of the border area by stating what the turf is that they will seek to defend. I have yet to see a really adequate publick statement from Thom or Andy (or both in concert) which clarifies this boundary. If there are new "archivers" introduced which obviate the SEA baseline entirely, then this point may become moot ... Without a productive turf to defend, T + A may choose to abandon the ARC turf (which it looked like they were doing 18 mos. ago) and move on to another more productive and profitable turf. But, that is not the case right now, and those of us who have an intellectual and potentially profit-driven interest in compresor/ librarians (aka "archivers") need to understand the boundaries. Also, once the boundaries are better defined, the basic merits of the SEA and the PK case becomes more clear , and the user community can exercise its judgement from a more sound base. So, let's get the driving parties to state the boundaries of this problem, discuss it, resolve it. I think further attempts to get a definitive SEA-Right, SEA-wrong resolution will cloud the resolution of the more critical issues. grant From YNCVIC SYRDON Msg #34225 *ARCHIVERS* To DEAN COOPER Thu Nov 17, 1988 3:08pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By all means, render this discussion unLinkable. Please. From STEVE MANES Msg #34228 *PUBLIC* To MANAGEMENT Thu Nov 17, 1988 3:44pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I've created a new ARCHIVERS board (#25) This will contain all the SEA v.PKARC stuff. From PUYALLUP Msg #34234 *PUBLIC* To STEVE MANES Thu Nov 17, 1988 4:58pm (Rcvd) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you so much. A real public service!! From THOMAS SHIM Msg #34294 *PUBLIC* To PUYALLUP Fri Nov 18, 1988 1:19am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oh, you don't find >any< of it interesting? I find it pretty wild and wooly. From PUYALLUP Msg #34232 *ARCHIVERS* To DEAN COOPER Thu Nov 17, 1988 4:55pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Thank you Mr. Manes, for creating the ARCHIVERS thread, which I can choose not to link into!! After at least 93 multiscreen messages marching across my screen, I think the arguments have all been voiced. The matter has been settled in court. I'm glad I can go through the COMPUTERS thread without having to wade through this any more. Dean, it's not like you haven't held forth on this ad nauseum. It's also not like several people haven't suggested you drop it, that it's all been said. I certainly don't aspire to controlling your behavior, but I'm grateful that things are now arranged so that I can leave this behind. From GRANT ELLSWORTH Msg #34341 *ARCHIVERS* To THOMAS SHIM Fri Nov 18, 1988 10:53am ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archivers Discussion Area / Darn good idea Now that there is a separate discussion area, could we get somewhat past the specific SEA/PK issues, and discuss other topics like Compression methods? Or ideal arhcive/library file architectures? Grant From DEAN COOPER Msg #34348 *ARCHIVERS* To STEVE MANES Fri Nov 18, 1988 1:26pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well I called Thom yesterday afternoon, and he certainly helped answer some of the questions I had been asking. I only wish he had bothered to answer my questions before, as it could've saved a lot of time. It's depressing to think that message bases just aren't that adequate in resolving disputes. I don't pretend to understand Thom completely, and so I may have inadvertently interpreted him wrongly. If so, I hope he can take the time to correct me. But this is my paraphrase of what I believe is Thom's position: To Thom, the law is clearly on his side. He's simply protecting his rights as allowed by the copyright law. To him, the law says that if a person has access to your copyrighted code, that then you can assume that your code was used. If that person then creates a "substantially similar" product, then it is by definition a derivative work. It doesn't matter whether or not the product is substantially faster. It doesn't really even matter if that product really contains any of his code (although he believes that PKARC does). Thus, when Phil admitted seeing the code to ARC, that was all Thom needed to win half of the case, as far as he is concerned. The only other thing to show is that ARC and PKARC/PKXARC are substantially similar, which at least as far as functionally goes, is easy to do. So, looking at the list I made of possible extents of infringement running from A to J, I think Thom says the law considers A (just obtaining a copy of the source) all one has to do to then to be in copyright violation if one then makes a substantially similar work. Since I am not a lawyer, I don't know if the law really says this, but it's irrelevant until a court case sets a precedent. Until then, whether it's right or wrong, people should be forewarned not to look at other people's source code, or else be willing to pay them royalties, or else get a clear written letter allowing you to use it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- !!! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT !!! Let me emphasize here, if you are a programmer who creates a program, and in the creation of that program you in any way LOOKED at or used some other code that is copyrighted, then MAKE SURE YOU GET PERMISSION TO USE IT. Get a written statement from the owner of the copyright that states what rights you have to their copyrighted work. If you want to avoid paying people royalties or having to get permission, then DON'T LOOK AT or even OBTAIN someone else's copyrighted source. !!! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT ! IMPORTANT !!! ----------------------------------------------------------------- To me, this is all pretty depressing. Thom thinks it's just normal business sense to make sure you are licensed to use any source you may have looked at, studied, or used. Because I have never asked Kent Williams for permission to use his code (I used it when I started DWC), Thom thought that the law could be on Kent's side and so I could be in murky territory even though there's hardly any of Kent's code left in DWC and I had thought Kent's code was public domain. Thom said he didn't think Kent's code was public domain and it would be irrelevant if I was ignorant of the fact as the law is the law. Thom's contention is that he has an intellectual property and that by looking at it, you've learned some things that are his original creation, and you therefore need to get permission to use what you've learned if you create a product that is substantially similar to his. To Thom, it doesn't matter that his program borrows heavily from others. He did what was proper and obtained those authors' permissions. All software is, after all, built on other people's efforts. He simply sees that he made original modifications and those are what he claims to own. It's irrelevant how major or minor those original modifications are, they are still copyrighted. I may also be in murky territory when it comes to SEA's code as I did download it and took a glance or two at it (after I had written DWC). Thom hasn't really looked at DWC or considered me as a competitor, so he really couldn't say what he thought for sure. The same applies with the MDCD archiver. Thom evidently hadn't heard about this one, but again he thinks Mike Davenport may be in murky territory too, although he would have to sort out what source came from where and so on, and so couldn't say for sure about it either. Also, Mike isn't a commercial competitor, so SEA isn't likely to do anything. Still it would be best for Mike to contact SEA to make sure there's no problem or to get permission if it's needed. I will notify Mike about this. Thus, the solution, Thom thinks, is that we should simply license the use of ARC sources from SEA if we indeed did use it. I raised the hypothetical situation where I went commercial with DWC and made it ARC compatible. I suggested that in that case I might get a license from them even if I felt I hadn't violated their copyright just to make sure they wouldn't sue me. Thom said someone else had actually said the same thing to them, and that he said he would not be a party to extortion or taking pay-offs. If a party doesn't agree that their work is a derivative work, then SEA won't license them even if the party is willing to pay the royalties. Thom also considered Phil's source code inferior and if Phil had been applying to work to them, that he wouldn't have hired Phil based on work like that. He cited Phil's lack of comments and generally unmaintainable style as reasons. Certainly, maintainable code is an important thing to a business, but I'm sure Phil wasn't concerned with that. He obviously was concerned with speed, but it seems speed is not nearly as important to SEA. In another point I suggested that Thom could have at least warned people who looked at his source that they then couldn't create similar products without obtaining permission from SEA. But Thom said that to say anything more than just the normal copyright message would potentially cause him to lose rights. And after all, to Thom, the copyright law is the law and people should know it, especially if they're going commercial. At one point in time, Thom gave Phil the benefit of the doubt, and offered to Phil to not go after past violations since Phil may not have known about copyright law, but would simply request royalties on future sales. To Thom, he was being generous. Thom feels that he's obligated to protect his rights. The law gives him certain rights, and if he doesn't defend them, then he will lose them. If he lets Phil use the name PKARC, then others will use names that are similar, like GSARC did (for a time). He feels that if he doesn't defend his rights, that then other authors will lose their rights too, and so he feels that he's doing a service to all shareware authors. He regrets the poor public relations that have resulted, but he has rights that must be defended and thinks that if people understood copyright law, that they would then be on SEA's side. Thom, as he sees it, must also protect his rights with respect to the ARC file format. He feels that copyright law says he owns the file format, and thus, he can't allow others to alter it without his permission. I can see now why Steve, who had talked with Thom before, wanted to let the courts handle this matter and say it isn't up to him to say where the line of copyright infringement is drawn. To talk to Thom, one is hard pressed to believe that copyright law is anything but what he says it is. I think that it is good, at least, to finally see where SEA is coming from. And perhaps it good to know you have to get permission from the owner's of copyrighted works if you use their work in ANY way. Certainly it is important to know how some people interpret the copyright laws. Thom says that if one doesn't like the law, that you should try to change it. But of course, not everybody interprets the law as he does, so court cases will determine who's right and who's wrong. To be conservative, programmers had best not copy other people's names in any way, not copy their file format, not copy their user interface, and not look at or obtain other people's source code unless you're willing to pay royalties. To SEA, if you want to create a similar and compatible program to ARC without having to license it from them, then you should do what Phoenix did, and get programmers who never saw the source to ARC. Users, I'm sure, will not like having to put up with incompatible archivers and incompatible user interfaces, but SEA has left programmers no choice but to do that, unless the programmer is willing to fight in court or willing to pay royalties. I didn't ask Thom about this, but it is possible that SEA will also view any new archiver from Phil as still being a derivative work since Phil has seen their source and therefore still has learned something from their work. It would be much harder for SEA to win a case, since Phil's new archiver would no longer have the same file format, no longer have a similar name, and probably no longer have the same user interface, but even still, it is a work that some could say is a derivative of ARC since Phil wrote it based on his knowledge of ARC's source code. From the way Thom talked, it appears he takes each case as it comes so he may not have even given such an eventuality much thought yet, but I suppose he will if Phil's new archiver is much of a success. <> From DEAN COOPER Msg #34349 *ARCHIVERS* To STEVE MANES Fri Nov 18, 1988 1:27pm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From a "legal" standpoint, I guess I'm now unsure whether or not Phil could've won in court, mainly because it seems it's irrelevant whether or not Phil actually used much or any of SEA's code. It would come down to how the judge interprets the law. For sure, I never was arguing from a legal standpoint anyway. However, I must say that it still seems unfair that a person can spend so much time writing a program that is so original and still be in violation of the copyright law. To me, Phil did the American thing by putting his nose-to-the-grindstone and creating a superior competitive product. His program sells almost solely on the basis of its speed which is certainly valuable and original code as proved by SEA's use of Phil's code in QARC. How could Phil have learned anything useful from looking at SEA's code other than learning SEA's file format? SEA doesn't claim to own the compression algorithms anyway. SEA's point of view is that they own the file format, and Phil must license the use of it. Their archiver and file format created an industry standard so Phil is obligated, in SEA's view, to pay them royalties if he wants to be compatible and take advantage of the standard they created. SEA created a de facto term, ARC, and again in their view, Phil is obligated to pay them if he wants to take advantage of that name. SEA created a de facto user interface standard and Phil is obligated to pay them if he wants to take advantage of that. This is all pretty depressing to me. SEA put two things together that other people had created, the archiver and the compressor, adding a few modifications here and there, and since it was the first of its kind, it became a de facto standard. Then Phil came along and created the same thing, but threw in a super engine. In order to make sure it was compatible, he looked at SEA's source. This doesn't mean he copied any lines of code, only that he figured out their file format. Sure, Phil took advantage of the standard's created by ARC, but he also wrote quite original code. People loved Phil's new program because it did basically what ARC did but was so much faster. They no longer had to take coffee breaks. There's no question in my mind that Phil wrote quite original code and was hardly a pirate in the sense of copying code from the ARC source code. So, the question is, is Phil, regardless of the fact that he wrote original code, still obligated to pay SEA royalties for making his program compatible with theirs? Another way to ask the question is, is Phil correct in refusing to pay SEA? If you were in Phil's shoes, would you refuse to pay? In my case, I know that I didn't copy ARC's user interface with the intention to take advantage of the standard they created. I copied it because I knew how mad and angry users get with incompatible interfaces. Good grief, everybody and his brother uses WordStar compatible editing commands. Everybody makes their programs to read standard file formats. I thought I was doing users a service. I admit copying SEA's interface, but don't users have any rights to demand standards? Phil admits copying SEA's file format, but don't users have any rights to demand standard file formats? I think SEA's rights MUST be balanced with users rights. We should not allow software authors to have ALL the rights, and users to have NO rights. SEA only considers their own rights, they don't seem to care about the users' rights. It's the users who must decide. Users are the ones, after all, who created the ARC standard. Users are the ones who must pay all these legal fees. Users are the ones who must put up with the incompatible programs. What do the users have to say?? WILL USERS DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS??? Dean W. Cooper