copyright notices (was: Re: UNIX-Time the right way ...)

[John F. Haugh II]

In article <2757 at cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl at oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>If use, duplication, and disclosure is prohibited without express
>written permission, and no such express written permission has been
>supplied, what's the point of posting this to alt.sources?  Even if
>such permission is available, it's quite meaningless to ask for
>non-disclosure of any code that's posted to Usenet.

It's called "a formality".  I actually have a vi key bound to a
command which inserts copyright notices at the very top of source
code files.  Honest people don't have problems with copyright
notices.

In several years of posting source code I have only =once= refused
distribution or duplication permission to anyone.  That was to
a company which wanted to use a dialer package I posted without
giving any credit to me for authorship or without paying a token
royalty.  The dialer package was to be part of a communications
application which they were selling for profit.

>"Non-commercial (profit-making)"...isn't that an oxymoronic phrase?

Hmmm.  Yes, I suppose you might have a point there - it probably
should read "Non-commercial (not profit making) distribution
permitted".

>What has Usenet come to?  (At least, what has the alt.* hierarchy come
>to?)

Just because it's the alt.net you get to steal other people's work?
Please, if that's the case I'll stop posting code, as will many
others who don't believe in plagiarism or outright theft.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh at rpp386.cactus.org
"SCCS, the source motel!  Programs check in and never check out!"
		-- Ken Thompson