home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Usenet 1994 October
/
usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicoctober1994disk1.iso
/
altsrc
/
articles
/
10927
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-07-22
|
5KB
|
108 lines
Newsgroups: alt.sources,comp.dcom.modems,comp.protocols.misc
Path: wupost!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!omen!caf
From: caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: zmtx/zmrx, zmodem implementation build from scratch
Organization: Omen Technology INC, Portland Rain Forest
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 22:46:34 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Jul22.224634.29087@omen.UUCP>
References: <30l4qj$ljt@chuckwalla.cs.arizona.edu> <id.FDFB1.2A1@nmti.com> <CtCEys.D8A@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Lines: 96
Xref: wupost alt.sources:10927 comp.dcom.modems:63832 comp.protocols.misc:3376
In article <CtCEys.D8A@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> wfp5p@tigger.itc.Virginia.EDU (Bill Pemberton) writes:
>In article <id.FDFB1.2A1@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> wrote:
>>In article <30l4qj$ljt@chuckwalla.cs.arizona.edu>,
>>Gene Kim <gkim@CS.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>>> Could you elaborate about what you find objectionable? Were the
>>> zm authors to simply replace their zmodem.h file with one from an old
>>> rzsz package, would your qualms about copyright violations go away?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>They have established a reasonable suspicion that the whole package is
>>copied, by using a clumsily disguised zmodem.h file. What else have they
>>"borrowed"?
>
>I disagree, the header file doesn't create reasonable suspicion of anything.
>If the only example is that the #defines are similar, that doesn't tell me a
>thing. The defines MUST be similar for the silly thing to work, it's part
>of the protocol!
By the same logic, there's nothing wrong with armed robbery compared to
unarmed robbery. You MUST use guns for the silly heist to work reliably!
They could have used a public domain version of zmodem.h without any
difficulty whatsoever interoperating with Omen Technology Products.
>
>You know, there is a lot of code out there with:
>
>#define TRUE 1
>#define FALSE 0
>
>
>Are they all copyright violations of the first one that came up with this?
I'm not complaining about their cpying of "#define SOH 1" from rz/sz
despite the fact their code never uses it.
I'm complaining about what they've copied from the Copyrighted
zmodem.h. The following makes the plagiarism clear:
rz> /*
rz> * Z M O D E M . H Manifest constants for ZMODEM
rz> * application to application file transfer protocol
rz> * Copyright 1993 Omen Technology Inc All Rights Reserved
rz> */
zm> /*
zm> * zmodem.h
zm> * zmodem constants
zm> * (C) Mattheij Computer Service 1994
zm> */
Obviously Mattheij isn't too bright on copyright basics. The (C) does not
have legal significance. Omen's "All Rights Reserved" does.
rz> #define ZMAXHLEN 16 /* Max header information length NEVER CHANGE */
zm> #define ZMAXHLEN 0x10 /* maximum header information length */
rz> #define ZMAXSPLEN 1024 /* Max subpacket length NEVER CHANGE */
zm> #define ZMAXSPLEN 0x400 /* maximum subpacket length */
rz> #define CANVHDR 01 /* Variable headers OK */
zm> #define ZF1_CANVHDR 0x01 /* Variable headers OK */
rz> #define ZMCHNG 8 /* Change filename if destination exists */
zm> #define ZF1_ZMCHNG 8 /* Change filename if destination exists */
>Furthermore, look at the code. I haven't dug deep into it, but on a casual
>look they are different. For example, you can actually read the code to zmrx.
rz/sz would be easier to read if it didn't have a zillion #ifdefs and special
cases to support the wide variety of platforms it supports. You should have
seen it before I removed the VMS and GEnie support from rz/sz 3.xx!
>Also, if they copied the code, why didn't they copy all of it? zmrx omits a
>few things like the handling of ZSINIT. If you're going go copy, why leave
>out major functionality?
Because it's a lousy, lazy copy that was clumsily hacked in in
attempt to disguise the plagiarism. That it's a piece of poorly
hacked compost does not excuse plagiarism and copyright
infringement.
It's obvious they did their code massaging with a guilty
conscience. They didn't have to recode the rz/sz zsendline()
into tx() et al because the zsendline routine is unchanged from
the PD versions. Their version is slower. It doesn't meet the
protocol definition beacause they made a mistake when they
attempted to hide the fact thet they'd copied zsendline()
instead of independently developing code.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX caf@omen.COM 503-621-3406
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, GSZ and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-621-3746 FAX:-3735 CIS:70007,2304