#: 207731 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 11:45:42 Sb: #207667-#Arc vs. PKArc Fm: Basil Copeland 71656,472 To: Paul Schauble 76340,1215 (X) > If he really thinks that, he doesn't sound like a person who can be reasoned with. (Isn't that nicer than saying "He's out of his mind!") According to that logic, IBM and/or Microsoft need a license from SEA in order for the user to simply COPY an ARC file! I keep thinking of the analogy to other "standards compatible" software, such as all the 1-2-3 compatible spreadsheets, and DBII compatible database programs. Does Supercalc4 (which I use) need a license from Lotus in order to "import" a 1-2-3 compatible spreadsheet? Why does Thom think he is any different? #: 207811 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 20:01:01 Sb: #207731-Arc vs. PKArc Fm: Charles Robertson 70130,330 To: Basil Copeland 71656,472 (X) basil, i see at least we are in complete agreement. i think the problem with the others in this tread and the "lawyers" is a problem in semantics. the trademark and other copyright laws apply not to xxxxx.ARC files but instead to xxARCxxx.EXE/COM programs. further (as long as you didn't market under a name of xxARC or ARCxx) i don't think the creation of a program unarchiving any xxx.ARC file would violate any type of copyright or trademark laws either (as long as you didn't copy SEA's code - although you could use several PD sections of code available). with the improper semantics applied indeed IBM/MicroSoft would be in violation of the recent settlement, with COPY (as you mentioned), DEBUG, TYPE, FIND, etc etc. #: 207732 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 11:45:50 Sb: #207679-Arc vs. PKArc Fm: Basil Copeland 71656,472 To: Philip R. Burns 72437,62 (X) It not only needs to be "clear and unambiguous," but REASONABLE, as well. And if he doesn't do something soon, the damage to his own product and reputation will be irreversible. His reputation in the BBS/public domain/shareware community is just about worthless right now. -Basil #: 207739 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 12:07:34 Sb: #SEA/PK Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 (X) Jon - As I'm sure you've seen here, there are rampant rumors about SEA claiming that someone reading an ARC directory requiring a license. I hope you will clarify this ASAP. I'm also VERY disturbed by the implication that SEA is using the Katz case (where code copying was at least a major issue and there was NO legal precedent set) as support for any claim it has on the ARC format. Frankly, if true, this claim on someone reading and interpreting the ARC needing a license is absurd and I believe unacceptable even if the license is originally offered for only $1. Lotus hasn't claimed that a program importing 123 worksheets needs a license. Ditto importing WP files. I started out as something of a moderate on SEA but I'm fast turning onto a radical. - Barry #: 207747 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 13:08:18 Sb: #207739-#SEA/PK Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I have TP 4.0, but WFiler has proven to be too complex for an "easy" conversion. I'll do it one of these days, just to see what the effect is on size and performance. But meanwhile, it is easier to do minor maintenance and feature changes with the 3.0 source. BTW, I was "offline" for several months. What is the status of CA+? -Basil #: 207816 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 20:27:33 Sb: #207747-SEA/PK Fm: Barry Simon 76004,1664 To: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 (X) I originally thought that the switch to TP 4 would be a real pain. I had an app written with Turbo extender with lots of different modules. Took about two hours to make the switch. The key is to be sure that you have 4.0 versions of your 3rd party routines. Units are a pleasure to use and I wouldn't consider going back to 3.0. Of course, if you can believe the KATT, we'll see 5.0 RSN so you may never use 4.0. - Barry #: 207794 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 17:42:01 Sb: #207739-SEA/PK Fm: Mark Lutton 73106,1627 To: Barry Simon 76004,1664 (X) I hereby claim copyright to this message you are now reading, and anyone reading this message owes me a $1 royalty fee. #: 207745 S9/Hot Topic (S) 26-Aug-88 12:39:58 Sb: #207542-#SEA/PK Fm: Bill Gordon 76010,3466 To: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 (X) I submit that a 4-person company cannot have experienced much of a "growth problem". Could you comment, please, on message #207667, the contents of which are MOST disturbing? Thank you. -bg #: 207873 S9/Hot Topic (S) 27-Aug-88 07:28:17 Sb: #207745-#SEA/PK Fm: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 To: Bill Gordon 76010,3466 (X) "A 4 person company cannot have experienced much of a growth problem." I was referring to the growth of sales. A 4 person company can experience a hell of a growth problem. #: 207889 S9/Hot Topic (S) 27-Aug-88 10:57:19 Sb: #207873-SEA/PK Fm: Bill Gordon 76010,3466 To: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 (X) >> growth of sales A high grade problem, no??? -bg #: 207892 S9/Hot Topic (S) 27-Aug-88 11:59:39 Sb: #SEA/PK Fm: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 To: All Here are some answers to the questions many of you have been asking: 1. SEA is committed to continuing ARC as shareware and even helping to promote ARC compatible products (like Vern's) where SEA's consent has been asked and obtained for their distribution #: 207930 S9/Hot Topic (S) 27-Aug-88 16:47:45 Sb: #207892-SEA/PK Fm: Philip R. Burns 72437,62 To: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 Your comments about getting SEA's consent for distribution of .ARC file processing utilities leads me to assume that you mean anyone who wishes to write any kind of program to manipulate or examine a .ARC file requires some kind of license? . If that is the case, I must say I find that utterly stupid. SEA published the file specification for .ARC files by publishing the source code. There was never any indication whatever that the .ARC file format was in any sense proprietary, or that there were any restrictions on its use. . I have a number of programs for which I've published the format of various files used by those programs. It would never occur to me to require anyone to ask my permission to manipulate those files with some other program. That simply doesn't make any sense whatever. If you don't want someone to manipulate the files, you don't publish the specifications. However, most software firms now recognize that many people wish to manipulate nominally program-specific files outside of the original program, and therefore publish the file formats and/or provide sample code to access the files. It's simply bad business not to do so. . I wrote a couple of programs which manipulate .ARC files which I have contributed to the public domain -- completely free and without attachments. (I believe that one of them, PIBCAT, is available here in IBMSW.) I will now withdraw them from circulation here on CIS and elsewhere. I will also immediately cease to use .ARC files for any other purpose. This will delay my releasing some other programs, which I normally distribute in .ARC format, but I am not willing to put up with this sort of completely unreasonable nonsense from ANY software vendor. I don't know what other format I will use to distribute the programs, but you can be sure that I will find one which is acknowledged by the developer to be free of idiotic constraints. #: 207939 S9/Hot Topic (S) 27-Aug-88 18:48:11 Sb: #207892-SEA/PK Fm: Robert Blacher 72677,3305 To: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 Your statement, apparently authorized by SEA, that SEA's permission must be obtained to distribute any "ARC compatible" program is simply preposterous. It can only be premised on the notion that SEA's copyright extends to the file format itself. If there were ever a case for that kind of copyright claim, this isn't it. Philip Burns' message to you eloquently demonstrates why this position also makes no sense as a business matter, even if it were legally defensible. Absent supporting programs of the kind that Philip and many others have written, the ARChive format would never have gained acceptance in the BBS community and spread from there to commercial users. Philip will by no means be the only author to refuse to seek SEA's permission for continued distribution of his programs. Rather than become entangled in such nonsense, the talented authors of archive utilities will simply turn their attention elsewhere. When those utilities disappear, so will SEA's ARC program. That the courts might not uphold SEA's position is largely irrelevant. The mere fact that authors of ARC compatible utilities *might* face legal action from SEA, however frivolous, will be sufficient to suppress development of such programs. Once the PKWare lawsuit was filed, the only way for ARC to survive was for SEA either to lose the suit or, in victory, to announce an unambigous and liberal policy of *not* requiring license agreements or any other kind of permission for distribution of compatible programs. Your statement is, indeed, unambiguous -- it is clearly wrong. Thom Henderson is to be congratulated for winning the battle with PKWare and, in so doing, losing the war. The ARChive format will disappear from BBS systems and that change will soon spread to business users. SEA is not likely to have the "growing pains" you've described for much longer. SEA has given Phil Katz, and others, a golden opportunity to push ARChives into obscurity by simply adopting a more sensible position on the copyright issues than has SEA. The search for a new system is now on. #: 207967 S9/Hot Topic (S) 27-Aug-88 21:35:29 Sb: #207892-SEA/PK Fm: Basil Copeland/CRC 74240,1161 To: Jonathan Wallace 74666,1406 This matter is getting completely out of hand. Your message appears to have been truncated, and the part that was lost may have held out the hope for a less obscurantist approach to this problem, but what was saved was not helpful or hopeful in the least. Take this specific case back to Thom and see what he says: I have a DOS file manager that reads ARC'd files and decodes part of the header so that the user can know what is in the file. If the user wants to extract the file, the user must have a dearcer (ARCE, ARC, or PK) that is called to do the work through a secondary command.com. I have no intention of paying one nickle, let alone a "nominal" $1 to SEA as a royalty when all my program does is decode part of the header, and depends upon another program to do the rest of the work. My program is not at all comparable to ARCE, and thus the constant reference to Vern's relationship to SEA is quite beside the point. If this nonsense keeps up much longer, the ARC standard will be dead a year from now, and SEA will have no one to blame but itself.