Columbia Kermit/kermit.zip/newsgroups/misc.19941221-19950208/[e-mail]_Sun Jan 22 16:05:23 1995.msg

Internet Message Format | 2020-01-01 | 6KB

Received: from apakabar.cc.columbia.edu by watsun.cc.columbia.edu with SMTP id AA11187
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for <[e-mail]>); Sun, 22 Jan 1995 11:05:28 -0500
Received: by apakabar.cc.columbia.edu id AA11129
  (5.65c+CU/IDA-1.4.4/HLK for kermit.misc@watsun); Sun, 22 Jan 1995 11:05:27 -0500
Path: news.columbia.edu!watsun.cc.columbia.edu!fdc
From: [e-mail] (Frank da Cruz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: MS-Kermit 3.14: BegWare?
Date: 22 Jan 1995 16:05:23 GMT
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 104
Message-Id: <3ftvo3$[e-mail]>
References: <3f6k1k$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: watsun.cc.columbia.edu
Keywords: MS-DOS Kermit
Apparently-To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, Evan Leibovitch <[e-mail]> wrote:
>In article <3f6k1k$[e-mail]>,
>Frank da Cruz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>MS-DOS Kermit 3.14 communications software for DOS and Windows was
>>released on January 12, 1995.
>...
>>Version 3.14 is available via anonymous ftp from kermit.columbia.edu
>...
>And then...
>...
>>BBS operators are asked NOT to put the MS-DOS Kermit software on their
>>BBSs for downloading by their users,
>
>Wonderful.
>It's OK to download Kermit from an ftp site, but not a BBS.
>
Evan, you didn't reproduce the entire statement, which said:

 . BBS operators are asked NOT to put the MS-DOS Kermit software on their
   BBSs for downloading by their users, as this adversely affects the
   Kermit effort, but rather to refer their users to Columbia University
   to obtain a proper copy of the software with manual (contact info is
   given below).

 . BBS operators who disagree with the previous condition are invited to
   contact us directly at <[e-mail]> to discuss the matter.

Thus, rather than posting an inflammatory message to the whole world, you
were invited to discuss it with us offline, to spare the planet another
month of acrimony and aggravation.

We are not running a democracy here, in which everybody gets to vote on
how we do our jobs.  We have to generate income to pay our salaries (and
for computers, supplies, etc), or we go away.  Thus, rousing the public to
yell at us accomplishes nothing.

>I'm sorry, but the policies of Columbia's Kermit projects are
>degenerating into what can only be described as total illogic.
>This policy is bigoted against those who can least afford to
>pay for Kermit (BBS use is cheaper than Internet access). It
>exhibits an ivory tower snobbery that doesn't pressure "research"
>users to buy the book, but does so to others whose only sin is
>not to be Internet-savvy.
>
Quite the opposite.  On the Internet, we are able to communicate with our
users.  We can get our message across to them: via announcements, ftp site
greeting messages, our Web page, newsgroups, etc, in an efficient way,
i.e. many people see one message.

But when software is distributed on BBSs, users who get it that way often
have no easy way to get in touch with us; furthermore, we have no control
over how the software is presented on the BBS -- what messages accompany
it, etc.  When contact does come from these users, e.g. because they have
technical questions because they did not get a manual, it is one-on-one;
an extremely inefficient use of our most precious and limited resource:
time.

>I'm sorry, but as one who contributed to the Kermit effort from back in
>the days when the only distribution was nine-inch tapes and the only
>docs were ten-pound boxes of printed sheets, I resent this policy and
>the attitude it represents. (I neither run nor use a BBS.)
>
I think you misunderstand the attitude.  Back in the old days, the Kermit
effort was paid for by a budget, and we didn't have to generate income.
We actually packed up and mailed out those boxes for free -- free! --
for quite a few years.  Then the budget went away and we had to pay for
ourselves.  Years passed, demands for new features and versions increased,
the user base increased, the technical support burden increased, and so
income has to increase.  We don't enjoy nagging everyone all the time
to "buy the book" (especially since it only makes sense and the nagging
should not be necessary), but if you want us to stop, then pay our
salaries :-)

The sad fact is that the good old days of subsidized development of free
software are over.  You might find a few people who still do it, but you
won't find it on an organizational level.  Look, for example, at the Free
Software Foundation.  Have you read their literature lately?  The rule of
the 90s is: if you want people to work for you, you have to pay them.  The
Kermit effort, and the FSF (if I may speak for them), are relics from the
good old days who want to keep a certain non-commercial, open, and
generous spirit alive, and make some contribution to humanity, but are
forced by economic circumstances to raise money to cover expenses.  If
millions of people did not use and benefit from our software, we might
think that we were irrelevant anachronisms who deserved to disappear and
give way to the voracious market forces of the 90s, but that does not seem
to be the case.  But what is disturbing is the growing attitude that "we"
(organizations like the Kermit group and the FSF) should work for "you"
with no compensation.

The Internet and the BBSs are not big bags of free goodies.  All of the
things you find there represent human labor.  If you make use of the
products of that labor, you should respect the wishes of the people who
did the work.

>First no CD-ROMs and now this. Please reconsider.
>
A careful reading of the two paragraphs in the original posting shows that
(a) it is a request, not a policy, and (b) we are open to ideas in this
area.  But, as discussed ad nauseum in the early days of this forum, we
have to operate within certain constraints and are not necessarily free to
do absolutely anything we (or you) can think of.

- Frank