Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mv.net!newspump.wustl.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!gberigan From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:34:15 -0600 Organization: http://cse.unl.edu/~gberigan/ Lines: 50 Message-ID: References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> NNTP-Posting-Host: abeln730a.unl.edu X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.1 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/2.4.1 X-Face: ZFtFvHS5S$A1psPzniMqb^/rZ:p6ekB-VFrEmh|`fm1ot%B?wIRZ$@_f2wXz7 z>JhMT= In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, in article Phil Stripling wrote: > My query is not that the files are plain text or a particular format, it is > whether the storage medium is accessible. A hundred years from now, who is > going to have a 3.5 inch floppy drive or a mounting device for a 2.1 G > fixed disk? On the other hand, all those books from centuries ago are still > readable without an external device. I saw a photograph of one of Thomas > Jefferson's letters, and it was readable (well, I had my reading glasses > on, but that's another issue) without mediation. Making sure the information survives the medium one should update the data for each successive form of media. Storage is a continuous evolution, always with at least two types of storage available. I could get some Apple ][+ programs stored on cassette onto an HFS+ Jaz disk by loading them into a //e and saved on 5.25" ProDOS disks, moved to 3.5" ProDOS disks on a IIgs, to an HFS volume on a Mac, and then to the HFS+ Jaz disk. Continued interest in emulators also spurs the transfer of information to more modern storage devices. Part of the reason why I have Apple II software on Jaz disks is the existence of emulators. There will always be some people who want to hold onto the past like this, which will extend the life of hardware and software. But still there are ways to retrieve data even from old magnetic media without knowing the format. One could examine the residual charges on the media, discover the storage method. > I don't expect people a hundred years from now to recognize my Apple Quadra > 630 _as_ a computer. (WIntel people don't recognize it _now_. :->) I have yet to get rid of any of my old machines. I have some that I've never really used. We have space probes out there running on old hardeare. However, web pages seem to be very fleeting. While we can pull up USENET news articles years old, nowadays when a web page is taken down, it is down forever. Search engines, though they could preserve them, are in the business of providing active links to the searchers. Proxy caches area also designed to keep current information. A DejaWeb would be nice. Crossposted to alt.folklore.computers as the readership there is the closest thing we have to "digital archaeologists" of which I am aware. -- ,=<#)-=# (The War of the Worlds) ,_--//--_, _-~_-(####)-_~-_ "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just (#>_--'~--~`--_<#) the photos. Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face." ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!207.los-angeles-16.ca.dial-access.att.net!user From: lesch@macvirus.com (Susan Lesch) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 4 Apr 1998 04:16:09 GMT Organization: none Lines: 37 Message-ID: <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.134.207 In article , gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) wrote: > However, web pages seem to be very fleeting. While we can pull up > USENET news articles years old, nowadays when a web page is taken > down, it is down forever. Search engines, though they could preserve > them, are in the business of providing active links to the searchers. > Proxy caches area also designed to keep current information. A > DejaWeb would be nice. You might like Alexa . I don't like it, sight unseen, and here's why. Their product will serve copies of old pages if an Alexa user gets a 404 error, and they "donate" a copy of the Web pages they copy to their own Internet Archive . They use the Robots Exclusion Protocol like it was free copy permissions. In the real world, copy permissions are not so easy to come by. Why doesn't Alexa ask people's permission to copy their Web sites, like normal people do? I may change my mind someday, but, this "reputation management" stuff is only a trendy buzzword. I think that selling ads for some perceived value-added analysis of my pages is mis-use of robots exclusion, and probably will be a copyright violation someday in the USA. The day (yesterday I think, right after I changed my robots.txt file) "ia_archiver" showed up active in my logs, I wrote to ask what they copied, and Alexa put my domain on their robot's do not visit list. Scram! I don't now why it seems different for Usenet, and why this article doesn't have a X-no-archive header. Still thinking about that one. It may be because I pay for the privilege of publishing copyrighted information on the Web, my provider has to distribute it, and so far my Usenet participation, while still copyrighted, is free other than dial-up service charges. If Usenet news had usage costs, which would make it more private and less public access, then I might feel differently about Deja News, reference.com and other services copying my work. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!cern.ch!rsplus05.cern.ch!flavell From: "Alan J. Flavell" Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 14:22:25 +0200 Organization: Porcine Aviation Enterprises Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> NNTP-Posting-Host: rsplus05.cern.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sunnews.cern.ch 891692545 6524 (None) 137.138.246.91 X-Complaints-To: news@sunnews.cern.ch X-Sender: flavell@rsplus05.cern.ch In-Reply-To: Disclaimer: speaking for myself only - and not for CERN X-spam-hater: definitely Comment: I hate unsolicited commercial email - boycott companies that use it X-say-it-again-spam: hate it! On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Greg Berigan wrote: > But still there are ways to retrieve data even from old magnetic media > without knowing the format. One could examine the residual charges on the > media, discover the storage method. Ah yes, "Bitterbrei" (presumably Prof. Bitter's porridge) was referred to when I was at the MPI. A porridge of iron filings or something like that, you spread it on magnetic media and then read the bits under a microscope. Whether it works above about 200bpi, what we were using then, I'm not sure, though. Prof. Bitter (I'm assuming he was a prof., I don't have his CV to hand) also invented a magnetic pancake, by the way ;-) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!ais.net!news.indiana.edu!news.iupui.edu!mozo.cc.purdue.edu!harbor.ecn.purdue.edu!jacoby From: jacoby@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (David Jacoby) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 4 Apr 1998 19:18:17 GMT Organization: Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN Lines: 31 Message-ID: <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> NNTP-Posting-Host: harbor.ecn.purdue.edu In article , Greg Berigan wrote: >In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, >in article >Phil Stripling wrote: >> My query is not that the files are plain text or a particular format, it is >> whether the storage medium is accessible. A hundred years from now, who is >> going to have a 3.5 inch floppy drive or a mounting device for a 2.1 G >> fixed disk? On the other hand, all those books from centuries ago are still >> readable without an external device. I saw a photograph of one of Thomas >> Jefferson's letters, and it was readable (well, I had my reading glasses >> on, but that's another issue) without mediation. The problem is even worse than that - a lot of data from the 50s and 60s are on tapes that are physically decaying, and the number of drives available to read the tapes is falling. I heard that for some space data (can't remember which or where), if you're going to get any of the data, you have to agree to and pay to copy everything on the tape, because the tape can't take more than one pass. I don't know how long it takes a floppy to die (for me, they die as soon as I put 'em into DOS/Windows machines), and there are questions as to how long CDs last, too. -- David Jacoby mailto:jacoby@ecn.purdue.edu Web Technician and Librarian http://harbor.ecn.purdue.edu/~jacoby/ Engineering Computer Network Writing software is more fun than work! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.mcgill.ca!cs.mcgill.ca!raphael From: Louis RAPHAEL Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 4 Apr 1998 20:30:16 GMT Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Lines: 56 Message-ID: <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: willy.cs.mcgill.ca User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971127 (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m)) In alt.folklore.computers David Jacoby wrote: : The problem is even worse than that - a lot of data from the 50s and 60s : are on tapes that are physically decaying, and the number of drives available : to read the tapes is falling. I heard that for some space data (can't remember : which or where), if you're going to get any of the data, you have to agree : to and pay to copy everything on the tape, because the tape can't take more : than one pass. My understanding is that a lot of magnetically stored data dating from that period is *already* lost, due to media decay. : I don't know how long it takes a floppy to die (for me, they die as soon as : I put 'em into DOS/Windows machines), and there are questions as to how long : CDs last, too. Indeed, floppies don't seem to be the pinnacle of reliability. I've gotten pretty good mileage (10 years and counting so far) from 360KB floppies, though. Not so much with anything else, although the 1.2 meg 5.25" floppies seem to be mostly okay too. 3.5" floppies seem to die for no reason, at any time - young or old. [Anyone else had this experience?] For long term storage of important information, I'd put my money on printing it on acid-free cotton-based paper. Looking through my university library (where 200 year-old books can be found on the *shelf*... and even in some cases taken out! only books ~300+ years old seem to be in the special collections), I notice that the big gap is indeed in the "acidified" period. I'd say, from some time towards the end of the last century, until now (the most recent ones haven't had time to decay yet, I suppose). Books dating from the early 1800s are usually in *much* better condition than books dating from the 1920s, for example. Indeed, often as not, the paper isn't even yellowed. It's hard to believe that they're that old. Looking at them carefully, one sees that the paper is less fine than is used nowadays, that the ink spread along the fibres a bit more than it does nowadays and that the type is not quite as good as a high-quality job today (although certainly better than the output of Word, or such, if you ask me), but apart from that, the books look very much like contemporary ones, and are in no worse condition than if they were 10-20 years old... but they're ten times that old. Some of the original bindings are still around, even. I find it quite a thrill to read an article written by Humphrey Davy on the metallurgy of iron, in the original Philosophical Review of 1813 (I think it was 1813). A thrill that wouldn't be possible if the paper used in that period hadn't been of high enough quality to endure close to two hundred years, with no particular care (shelf on library). From the look of them, I think that unless a disaster happens, they'll probably endure another 200 years easily. IMHO, I'd definitely suggest paper if it's *really* important. Punched holes in plastic tape is probably a good bet, too, although I doubt that it's quite exactly affordable for most. Louis ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.mcgill.ca!cs.mcgill.ca!raphael From: Louis RAPHAEL Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 4 Apr 1998 20:30:16 GMT Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Lines: 56 Message-ID: <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: willy.cs.mcgill.ca User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971127 (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m)) In alt.folklore.computers David Jacoby wrote: : The problem is even worse than that - a lot of data from the 50s and 60s : are on tapes that are physically decaying, and the number of drives available : to read the tapes is falling. I heard that for some space data (can't remember : which or where), if you're going to get any of the data, you have to agree : to and pay to copy everything on the tape, because the tape can't take more : than one pass. My understanding is that a lot of magnetically stored data dating from that period is *already* lost, due to media decay. : I don't know how long it takes a floppy to die (for me, they die as soon as : I put 'em into DOS/Windows machines), and there are questions as to how long : CDs last, too. Indeed, floppies don't seem to be the pinnacle of reliability. I've gotten pretty good mileage (10 years and counting so far) from 360KB floppies, though. Not so much with anything else, although the 1.2 meg 5.25" floppies seem to be mostly okay too. 3.5" floppies seem to die for no reason, at any time - young or old. [Anyone else had this experience?] For long term storage of important information, I'd put my money on printing it on acid-free cotton-based paper. Looking through my university library (where 200 year-old books can be found on the *shelf*... and even in some cases taken out! only books ~300+ years old seem to be in the special collections), I notice that the big gap is indeed in the "acidified" period. I'd say, from some time towards the end of the last century, until now (the most recent ones haven't had time to decay yet, I suppose). Books dating from the early 1800s are usually in *much* better condition than books dating from the 1920s, for example. Indeed, often as not, the paper isn't even yellowed. It's hard to believe that they're that old. Looking at them carefully, one sees that the paper is less fine than is used nowadays, that the ink spread along the fibres a bit more than it does nowadays and that the type is not quite as good as a high-quality job today (although certainly better than the output of Word, or such, if you ask me), but apart from that, the books look very much like contemporary ones, and are in no worse condition than if they were 10-20 years old... but they're ten times that old. Some of the original bindings are still around, even. I find it quite a thrill to read an article written by Humphrey Davy on the metallurgy of iron, in the original Philosophical Review of 1813 (I think it was 1813). A thrill that wouldn't be possible if the paper used in that period hadn't been of high enough quality to endure close to two hundred years, with no particular care (shelf on library). From the look of them, I think that unless a disaster happens, they'll probably endure another 200 years easily. IMHO, I'd definitely suggest paper if it's *really* important. Punched holes in plastic tape is probably a good bet, too, although I doubt that it's quite exactly affordable for most. Louis ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!chicago-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.enteract.com!dscheidt From: David Scheidt Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 5 Apr 1998 23:27:31 GMT Organization: EnterAct L.L.C. Turbo-Elite News Server Lines: 46 Message-ID: <6g9413$di4$1@eve.enteract.com> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <6g6kch$qn9$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.229.129.3 X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA release 970115] In alt.folklore.computers Tim Shoppa wrote: : In article <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca>, : Louis RAPHAEL wrote: : >In alt.folklore.computers David Jacoby wrote: : >: The problem is even worse than that - a lot of data from the 50s and 60s : >: are on tapes that are physically decaying, and the number of drives available : > : >My understanding is that a lot of magnetically stored data dating from : >that period is *already* lost, due to media decay. : Not that I've found. I regularly read tapes from the 60's for customers : and as long as the data is recovered on the "first pass", there isn't much : problem. I should point out that I go to great lengths to ensure that : data is recovered on the first pass - my data separators are more than : the typical AGC-and-discriminator types found on conventional 7- : and 9-track drives. From what I have hear people who deal with audio tape archives say, it is tapes from the 1970s that are the problem. Apparently, the magnetic media doesn't stay bound to the tape film. Earlier tape doesn't have the problem, and later tape either fixed it, or is still too new. The last ditch recovery attempt is baking the tape, in a plain old oven. I presume that the physical media used for data tape is the same, and thus would have the same problems? I do some digging and see what I can find out. David : >5.25" floppies seem to be mostly okay too. 3.5" floppies seem to die : >for no reason, at any time - young or old. [Anyone else had this : >experience?] I had a 3.5 floppy fail in the time it took to move it from one machine to the one next to it! NeXT hardware, not cheap PC stuff. : I don't have any 3.5" or 5.25" floppies more than 20 years old, but 8-inch : floppies from 1973 read just fine on my drives. I suspect that mass- : production of 3.5" and 5.25" floppy drives have led to many out-of- : tolerance floppies being written on many recent machines, and this : is the problem that most folks see. (Also, the tendency for PC-clones : to be constructed from lowest-bid components doesn't say much for the : reliability of many of the floppy controllers that are put into current : machines.) : Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca) ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:32:29 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 89 Message-ID: <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Susan Lesch wrote: > > You might like Alexa . I don't like it, > sight unseen, and here's why. Their product will serve copies of old > . They use the Robots Exclusion Protocol > like it was free copy permissions. In the real world, copy permissions > are not so easy to come by. Well, the Robot Explusion Protocol is there to protect _servers_ from being overloaded or otherwise damaged by robots accessing them (bulk accesss), not to protect data from being copied. That is why there is only one robots.txt file in the top directory of the server, not in every users directory. If you want to stop people reading data (surfers or robots) you need to use access controls or file permissions, together with User IDs and authentification. Too completely different issues here. > Why doesn't Alexa ask people's permission > to copy their Web sites, like normal people do? Most people don't do that either, so why should a robot? Generally: if you don't want it out, don't put it out. The Web is for distributing, not for keeping. > I think that selling ads for some perceived > value-added analysis of my pages is mis-use of robots exclusion, If you don't percieve an added value, don't use their service. Others may do, so let them. In the end the market will decide whether they are worthy of being looked at. No viewers, no ad money, bancruptcy > and probably will be a copyright violation someday in the USA. Here you are getting into very murky water. I assume you are talking about free-to-download web pages, not pay-for-view pages that they are republishing for free. Strictly you have decided to not make use of you right to demand money for your work of authoring the pages. So copyright, which is other-person-copy-made-illegal to protect authors/publishers distribute-cost-as-pay-for-copy income schemes doesn't have much to stand on. It _may_ be legally still valid, but most likely easy for the violator to argue out of. Actually I think that any non pay-for-read publication should automatically loose its copyright. > The day > (yesterday I think, right after I changed my robots.txt file) > "ia_archiver" showed up active in my logs, I wrote to ask what they > copied, and Alexa put my domain on their robot's do not visit list. So they have demonstrated sensitivity to your issues. > I don't now why it seems different for Usenet, and why this article > doesn't have a X-no-archive header. Still thinking about that one. Because you did not tell it to have one :-) And it is not the default, as most people don't care for their posts staying readable after news server expire. After all, most Useneters write posts for them to be read! > It may be because I pay for the privilege of publishing copyrighted > information on the Web, my provider has to distribute it, and so far my > Usenet participation, while still copyrighted, is free other than > dial-up service charges. If Usenet news had usage costs, which would > make it more private and less public access, then I might feel > differently about Deja News, reference.com and other services copying > my work. AAeeehhhhh????? Demanding pay-for-read for covering authoring costs is understandable, even if I don't like it. But forbidding archiving of free-to-read Web pages because publishing them costed? I don't see the logic there. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 00:48:06 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 60 Message-ID: <35280A26.93143D36@ccw.ch> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Louis RAPHAEL wrote: > > For long term storage of important information, I'd put my money on > printing it on acid-free cotton-based paper. Looking through my [nice description of book state snipped] Well I would not use paper. For one _big_ reason: It is not computer readable. Just think of the entire valuable contents of my harddisk all printed out. Now try to _find_ something in that pile of paper. What counts is not what data survives, but what survives in an usable (includes findable) state. If I had the resources I would computerise/digitise all the books on my bookshelf to make them more usable (at the moment the computer only indexes short descriptions of them). > I find it quite a thrill to read an article written by Humphrey Davy on > the metallurgy of iron, in the original Philosophical Review of 1813 (I > think it was 1813). A thrill that wouldn't be possible if the paper > used in that period hadn't been of high enough quality to endure close Actually the great thing with any _digital_ data is lossless duplication. So the way to survive media falibility and outdatedness is to copy _all_ of it to newer media every time you upgrade your computer setup. I have done exactly this since may 286-12 up to my present Unix workstations. I can read every file I have made since ca 1989. Previous stuff from my C64 days is lost because I did not recognize the importance of archiving in the days I still had both C64 and 286. The Space data would not be going lost if someone had early enough thought of making new copies of them. P.S: is there anyone near here (north-east Switzerland) who has still got an running C64/128 that will read 1541 floppies? > IMHO, I'd definitely suggest paper if it's *really* important. Punched > holes in plastic tape is probably a good bet, too, although I doubt > that it's quite exactly affordable for most. Or simply enough copies on digital media, keep the stuff copied, regularly repeated in every machine generation. Oh: and make sure you use data formats that are documented, such as HTML and GIF/PNG/JPG, i.e. avoid any proprietary data formats that depend on one vendors software and platform choice, Word/Excel/Powerpoint, Windows. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.mcgill.ca!cs.mcgill.ca!raphael From: Louis RAPHAEL Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 6 Apr 1998 02:30:36 GMT Organization: Societe pour la promotion du petoncle vert Lines: 55 Message-ID: <6g9eoc$hu@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <35280A26.93143D36@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: willy.cs.mcgill.ca User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-971127 (UNIX) (SunOS/4.1.4 (sun4m)) In alt.folklore.computers Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: : Well I would not use paper. For one _big_ reason: It is not computer : readable. Just think of the entire valuable contents of my harddisk all : printed out. Now try to _find_ something in that pile of paper. What : counts is not what data survives, but what survives in an usable : (includes findable) state. Definitely, it's not a good medium for storing binary files :-). What I'm saying is that it still has its place if you want to make really sure that you don't lose your thesis, for example... : If I had the resources I would computerise/digitise all the books on my : bookshelf to make them more usable (at the moment the computer only : indexes short descriptions of them). That could be very useful indeed. Often, I've wished I could grep through a huge number of books, to find a passage that I remember, although I don't remember where it came from. : Actually the great thing with any _digital_ data is lossless : duplication. So the way to survive media falibility and outdatedness is : to copy _all_ of it to newer media every time you upgrade your computer : setup. Yes - hopefully... but when it dies, it tends to really die. You can't squint and try to make it out... : I have done exactly this since may 286-12 up to my present Unix : workstations. I can read every file I have made since ca 1989. Previous : stuff from my C64 days is lost because I did not recognize the : importance of archiving in the days I still had both C64 and 286. Now you see the problem that I'm talking about. Of course, if you wanted to badly enough, you could get that data back, but maybe not before those floppies die. Of course, you're like me and keep three copies of anything remotely important, right? :-) : The Space data would not be going lost if someone had early enough : thought of making new copies of them. True. But nobody did. The argument I'm making is that the paper records from ~1800 survived with very little maintenance, and that this isn't true of the digital data that we're talking about. : Oh: and make sure you use data formats that are documented, such as HTML : and GIF/PNG/JPG, i.e. avoid any proprietary data formats that depend on : one vendors software and platform choice, Word/Excel/Powerpoint, : Windows. Yeah... I fully expect people to be laughing at today's proprietary M$ formats within twenty years - they'll wonder how people lived with such junk, I'm sure. Louis ###### Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!nagle From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Message-ID: Organization: Netcom On-Line Services X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #9 References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 06:09:12 GMT Lines: 17 Sender: nagle@netcom6.netcom.com gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) writes: >However, web pages seem to be very fleeting. While we can pull up USENET >news articles years old, nowadays when a web page is taken down, it is >down forever. Search engines, though they could preserve them, are in the >business of providing active links to the searchers. Proxy caches area >also designed to keep current information. A DejaWeb would be nice. There is such a thing. See "www.alexa.com". The people behind that are in fact archiving the entire Web every few months, and the copies are transferred, after six months, to a non-profit organization at the Presidio of San Francisco, which has funding to keep them indefinitely. They're working with various archival organizations like the Library of Congress to preserve the history of the Web. John Nagle ###### Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!ix.netcom.com!nagle From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Message-ID: Organization: Netcom On-Line Services X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #9 References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1998 06:16:01 GMT Lines: 12 Sender: nagle@netcom6.netcom.com jacoby@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu (David Jacoby) writes: >The problem is even worse than that - a lot of data from the 50s and 60s >are on tapes that are physically decaying, and the number of drives available >to read the tapes is falling. Very true. I was just involved in recopying the archives of the Stanford AI lab, 1968-1985, from 9 track 6250BPI tape to an IBM file server at IBM Almaden. It was readable only because someone had copied the original 7-track tapes to 9-track tapes around 1990, and we were able to scrounge three 9-track tape drives, one of which still worked. John Nagle ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!99.los-angeles-16.ca.dial-access.att.net!user From: lesch@macvirus.com (Susan Lesch) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 6 Apr 1998 09:01:48 GMT Organization: none Lines: 53 Message-ID: <6ga5ls$70l@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.134.99 In article <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > Well, the Robot Explusion Protocol is there to protect _servers_ from > being overloaded or otherwise damaged by robots accessing them (bulk > accesss), not to protect data from being copied. Yes, I think that is about right. From the unofficial, but extant robots exclusion specification [1] explains why it was written: "...various reasons. Sometimes these reasons were robot specific, e.g. certain robots swamped servers with rapid-fire requests, or retrieved the same files repeatedly. In other situations robots traversed parts of WWW servers that weren't suitable, e.g. very deep virtual trees, duplicated information, temporary information, or cgi-scripts with side-effects (such as voting)...." > If you want to stop people reading data (surfers or robots) you need > to use access controls or file permissions, together with User IDs > and authentification. A W3C working draft, again unofficial and it could change at any time, of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [2] suggests that someday, maybe not soon but someday, that each WWW document can be marked for archive permissions and all kinds of meta data. >> The day >> (yesterday I think, right after I changed my robots.txt file) >> "ia_archiver" showed up active in my logs, I wrote to ask what they >> copied, and Alexa put my domain on their robot's do not visit list. > > So they have demonstrated sensitivity to your issues. Yes, but it was a complete accident of timing that I saw "alexa.com" fly by in the Analog console window, and so happened to check my log. Even stranger, their robot was back again on Saturday. > AAeeehhhhh????? :-) > Demanding pay-for-read for covering authoring costs is > understandable, even if I don't like it. But forbidding archiving of > free-to-read Web pages because publishing them costed? I don't see > the logic there. The part about money is still unclear to me. Sorry to have clouded the picture. I don't know about in Switzerland, but in the US, certainly, distribution of copies, and possibly profiting from derivative works are rights given to those who create the copyrighted works. [1] http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/norobots.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.erols.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.125.85.9!news.mv.net!newspump.wustl.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!gberigan From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 11:22:20 -0500 Organization: http://cse.unl.edu/~gberigan/ Message-ID: References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> NNTP-Posting-Host: abeln730a.unl.edu X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.1 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/2.4.1 X-Face: ZFtFvHS5S$A1psPzniMqb^/rZ:p6ekB-VFrEmh|`fm1ot%B?wIRZ$@_f2wXz7 z>JhMT= Lines: 20 nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) wrote: >gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) writes: >> However, web pages seem to be very fleeting. While we can pull up USENET >> news articles years old, nowadays when a web page is taken down, it is >> down forever. Search engines, though they could preserve them, are in the >> business of providing active links to the searchers. Proxy caches area >> also designed to keep current information. A DejaWeb would be nice. > There is such a thing. See "www.alexa.com". Unfortunately it isn't available on my platform yet. I also don't like the idea of downloading a special application for this when it could be simply web-based. -- ,=<#)-=# (The War of the Worlds) ,_--//--_, _-~_-(####)-_~-_ "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just (#>_--'~--~`--_<#) the photos. Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face." ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!199.125.85.9!news.mv.net!newspump.wustl.edu!unlnews.unl.edu!gberigan From: gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Followup-To: alt.folklore.computers Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 11:39:00 -0500 Organization: http://cse.unl.edu/~gberigan/ Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <6g6kch$qn9$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <6g9413$di4$1@eve.enteract.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: abeln730a.unl.edu X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.1 User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/2.4.1 X-Face: ZFtFvHS5S$A1psPzniMqb^/rZ:p6ekB-VFrEmh|`fm1ot%B?wIRZ$@_f2wXz7 z>JhMT= In article <6g9413$di4$1@eve.enteract.com>, David Scheidt wrote: >In alt.folklore.computers, Tim Shoppa wrote: >> Louis RAPHAEL wrote: >>>In alt.folklore.computers, David Jacoby wrote: >>>> The problem is even worse than that - a lot of data from the 50s and 60s >>>> are on tapes that are physically decaying, and the number of drives >>>> available >>> My understanding is that a lot of magnetically stored data dating from >>> that period is *already* lost, due to media decay. >> Not that I've found. I regularly read tapes from the 60's for customers >> and as long as the data is recovered on the "first pass", there isn't much >> problem. > From what I have hear people who deal with audio tape archives say, it is > tapes from the 1970s that are the problem. Apparently, the magnetic media > doesn't stay bound to the tape film. : >>> 5.25" floppies seem to be mostly okay too. 3.5" floppies seem to die >>> for no reason, at any time - young or old. [Anyone else had this >>> experience?] > I had a 3.5 floppy fail in the time it took to move it from one machine to > the one next to it! NeXT hardware, not cheap PC stuff. A friend bought a box of "100% Certified" 5.25" disks. They had various problems. One of them was a disk that, when he tried to format it, it was rejected by the system. Looking at it after this attempt revealed a bare spot on the disk inside the jacket where some of the magnetic surface had come off. Seeing it was already ruined, he took a facial tissue and wiped at the surface. The magnetic coating came off easily. He proceeded to easily wipe off all of it off both sides, leaving a clear disk of acetate inside the jacket. With that disk and the others with other problems (two disks in one jacket, a jacket with no disk, etc.) he went back to the store. Holding up the disk to the store owner, looking through the opening for the head and through the bare acetate, he said, "Now THAT'S a blank disk!" The company never ordered disk stock from the same source again, and unloaded their remaining stock of bad disks on Best Buy. They also did a free repair on his disk drive to remove the deposited magnetic coating from the drive's head. We're getting pretty far off the topics from the original group (ciwah). Followups set to alt.folklore.computers. -- ,=<#)-=# (The War of the Worlds) ,_--//--_, _-~_-(####)-_~-_ "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just (#>_--'~--~`--_<#) the photos. Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face." ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!nntp.news.xara.net!xara.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!delos!server1.netnews.ja.net!news.coventry.ac.uk!not-for-mail From: bill.godfrey@motel.overeflow.com Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 6 Apr 1998 12:36:05 +0100 Organization: Coventry University Message-ID: <6gaen5$gjs@leofric.coventry.ac.uk> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: leofric.coventry.ac.uk Lines: 37 >Well, the Robot Explusion Protocol is there to protect _servers_ from >being overloaded or otherwise damaged by robots accessing them (bulk >accesss), not to protect data from being copied. That is why there is >only one robots.txt file in the top directory of the server, not in >every users directory. One more forceful method of excluding robots would be to detect a robot's User-Agent: field and if so serve up an error. However, there is no (as far as I can tell) mark to identify a robot. The server would have to keep a list of all known robots. Also, the robots.txt standard is pretty much stuck to anyway. >Most people don't do that either, so why should a robot? Generally: if >you don't want it out, don't put it out. The Web is for distributing, >not for keeping. A problem comes in when a robot starts going over cgi stuff. (or similar) I seem to recall a story where the "infinite book" cgi program on the NCSA's CGI documents web site was indexed by a robot. Could be a hoax, but it's plausible. >Here you are getting into very murky water. I assume you are talking >about free-to-download web pages, not pay-for-view pages that they are >republishing for free. The "fair use" part of most copyright laws come into play here. >violator to argue out of. Actually I think that any non pay-for-read >publication should automatically loose its copyright. That would free all of ITV's broadcasting. (British TV company. No costs to viewer, funded by advertising. Uses UHF radio.) ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 18:24:28 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 72 Message-ID: <352901BC.FE68D5A5@ccw.ch> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> <6ga5ls$70l@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Susan Lesch wrote: > > In article <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: > > > If you want to stop people reading data (surfers or robots) you need > > to use access controls or file permissions, together with User IDs > > and authentification. > > A W3C working draft, again unofficial and it could change at any > time, of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) [2] suggests that > someday, maybe not soon but someday, that each WWW document can be > marked for archive permissions and all kinds of meta data. I have already seen CGIs that demand username/password ID to access pages limited to paying users. I have had such Dialogs thrown at me when following new URLs. And I expect that the Web servers involved may also be able to do this for static pages. I wonder why they are dupicating the work done in all better OSes and Web servers of providing user IDs and access controls. Perhaps they regard it as not fine enough granularity for serving 1000000 Web users. > > So they have demonstrated sensitivity to your issues. > > Yes, but it was a complete accident of timing that I saw "alexa.com" > fly by in the Analog console window, and so happened to check my log. > Even stranger, their robot was back again on Saturday. Hmmm. So they did not put you on the list, or their list mechanism is defekt. Complain again. > > Demanding pay-for-read for covering authoring costs is > > understandable, even if I don't like it. But forbidding archiving of > > free-to-read Web pages because publishing them costed? I don't see > > the logic there. > > The part about money is still unclear to me. Sorry to have clouded the > picture. I don't know about in Switzerland Most likely identical to in the US. Both are members of the Berne convention on copyrights. BTW: Berne is the capital of Switzerland. > but in the US, certainly, > distribution of copies, and possibly profiting from derivative works > are rights given to those who create the copyrighted works. If the original work is sold/licenced it definitely is. I am not so sure in the case of it being made freely accessible by the copyright holder, such as in Web pages or Usenet messages. I can't remember the source of this one, but IIRC there was some case of making an work available free of pay invalidated its authors copyright claim later on. I also remember dimly some remark about AT&T losing the Unix copyright case against Berkley, because early copies had no copyright remark in them. Most Web pages and nearly all Usenet posts have none. I guess some standardised machine readable remark (?) would be needed to stop robots redistributing restricted stuff. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Mon, 06 Apr 1998 18:44:07 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 73 Message-ID: <35290657.23696BFF@ccw.ch> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> <6gaen5$gjs@leofric.coventry.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) bill.godfrey@motel.overeflow.com wrote: > > >Well, the Robot Explusion Protocol is there to protect _servers_ from > >being overloaded or otherwise damaged by robots accessing them (bulk > > One more forceful method of excluding robots would be to detect a > robot's User-Agent: field and if so serve up an error. User-Agent based auto-403-ing? That would be cool. Far better than robots.txt. I wonder why that one is not build into Web servers. > However, there is no (as far as I can tell) mark to identify a robot. > The server would have to keep a list of all known robots. There exist robot User-Agent lists, such as: The Web Robots Database > Also, the robots.txt standard is pretty much stuck to anyway. Perhaps an additional request that all robots have *robot* as part of their User-Agent field. Together with regexp driven auto-403-ing. > A problem comes in when a robot starts going over cgi stuff. (or > similar) > > I seem to recall a story where the "infinite book" cgi program on the > NCSA's CGI documents web site was indexed by a robot. > > Could be a hoax, but it's plausible. I would expect that to be an urban legend. Any sensible robot aborts after some specified document length. I have seen multiple robots drop at about 300k when reading one of my few 1000-1500k Web page monsters. Also sensible robots avoid anything with cgi-bin in the name. The same they could look for non-cachability (usually an mark of dynamic generated stuff). > >Here you are getting into very murky water. I assume you are talking > >about free-to-download web pages, not pay-for-view pages that they are > >republishing for free. > > The "fair use" part of most copyright laws come into play here. Law and "fair use"? I would not rely on that one :-) > >violator to argue out of. Actually I think that any non pay-for-read > >publication should automatically loose its copyright. > > That would free all of ITV's broadcasting. (British TV > company. No costs to viewer, funded by advertising. Uses UHF radio.) No. TV programs are clearly commercial. Even ITV is pay-per-view, but simply with the advertisers footing the bill for you (they pay for ad time) in exchange of you watching their spam (or trying to avoid it :-)). I was thinking more of Web pages where there is publishing without any perceptible intent of making an income. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 6 Apr 1998 21:42:13 GMT Message-ID: <6gbi7l$9io$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-050.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X Lines: 34 On 1998-04-06 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch said: :Actually I think that any non :pay-for-read publication should automatically loose its copyright. what about copylefted source code? :> I don't now why it seems different for Usenet, and why this :>article doesn't have a X-no-archive header. Still thinking about :>that one. :Because you did not tell it to have one :-) And it is not the :default, as most people don't care for their posts staying readable :after news server expire. After all, most Useneters write posts for :them to be read! on the other hand, anyone who doesn't want their idiocy preserved for posterity gets our applause. ;> :AAeeehhhhh????? Demanding pay-for-read for covering authoring costs :is understandable, even if I don't like it. But forbidding :archiving of free-to-read Web pages because publishing them costed? :I don't see the logic there. you have a point - however, archiving material that the original author no longer wishes to have in the public view against the author's will probably does violate copyright. the whole point of copyright is that it is a theoretical guarantee of intellectual ownership; just because someone chooses to display his artwork in a public forum doesn't make it automatically public-domain. otherwise an awful lot of professional artists are screwed. ;> -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!208.134.241.18!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.229.87.25!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!132.los-angeles-15.ca.dial-access.att.net!user From: lesch@macvirus.com (Susan Lesch) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 7 Apr 1998 00:37:28 GMT Organization: none Lines: 23 Message-ID: <6gbsg8$fcs@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> <6ga5ls$70l@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <352901BC.FE68D5A5@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.133.132 In article <352901BC.FE68D5A5@ccw.ch>, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: >> but in the US, certainly, >> distribution of copies, and possibly profiting from derivative works >> are rights given to those who create the copyrighted works. > > If the original work is sold/licenced it definitely is. > > I am not so sure in the case of it being made freely accessible by > the copyright holder, such as in Web pages or Usenet messages. > > I can't remember the source of this one, but IIRC there was some case > of making an work available free of pay invalidated its authors > copyright claim later on. > > I also remember dimly some remark about AT&T losing the Unix > copyright case against Berkley, because early copies had no copyright > remark in them. Most Web pages and nearly all Usenet posts have none. Thanks. I don't about AT&T but this could have been true prior to 1989. If you like, see Brad Templeton's most excellent, "10 Big Myths about copyright explained" [1] for some help, now updated to 11 Big Myths.;-) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!Supernews60!supernews.com!news.hk.linkage.net!packfish.gateway.net.hk!sargent From: sargent@packfish.gateway.net.hk (Alan Sargent) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Followup-To: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Date: 7 Apr 1998 03:23:21 GMT Organization: Gateway Internet Hong Kong Lines: 22 Message-ID: <891919399.90821@home.gateway.net.hk> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> <6ga5ls$70l@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <352901BC.FE68D5A5@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.76.19.5 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Cache-Post-Path: home.gateway.net.hk!sargent@packfish.gateway.net.hk Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: : I can't remember the source of this one, but IIRC there was some case of : making an work available free of pay invalidated its authors copyright : claim later on. ---true of a process you want to PATENT, not copyright. If you have the word "copyright" on it, it's protected no matter how you distribute it. : I also remember dimly some remark about AT&T losing the Unix copyright : case against Berkley, because early copies had no copyright remark in : them. Most Web pages and nearly all Usenet posts have none. You get these problems with TRADEMARKS not copyright. A single word (Unix) can't be copyrighted anyway. But it can be trademarked (but apparently wasn't before it had gone into common usage, when it's too late). A trademark can also lose its protection if it goes into common use and the owner doesn't take steps to stop it. I think Hoover and Xerox had these problems. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!dispose.news.demon.net!demon!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!tnglwood.demon.co.uk!unclebob From: Robert Billing Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Tue, 07 Apr 98 07:29:00 GMT Message-ID: <891934140snz@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> References: <891919399.90821@home.gateway.net.hk> Reply-To: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-User: unclebob@tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: post-20.mail.demon.net!post.mail.demon.net!tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 891938468 8934 unclebob tnglwood.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29 Lines: 17 In article <891919399.90821@home.gateway.net.hk> sargent@packfish.gateway.net.hk "Alan Sargent" writes: > owner doesn't take steps to stop it. I think Hoover and Xerox had these > problems. And Pullman, which a judge ruled was "synonymous with comfort." The Pullman company subsequently used the judge's words in their advertising. -- I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal lover, I live near 0:46W 51:22N. http://www.tnglwood.demon.co.uk/ "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three" ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!164.67.42.145!awabi.library.ucla.edu!137.82.194.1!unixg.ubc.ca!alph02.triumf.ca!shoppa From: shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca (Tim Shoppa) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 7 Apr 1998 16:13:49 GMT Organization: TRIUMF, Canada's National Meson Facility Lines: 42 Message-ID: <6gdjbt$ds1$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <6g6kch$qn9$1@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca> <6g9413$di4$1@eve.enteract.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: alph02.triumf.ca In article <6g9413$di4$1@eve.enteract.com>, David Scheidt wrote: >In alt.folklore.computers Tim Shoppa wrote: >: Not that I've found. I regularly read tapes from the 60's for customers >: and as long as the data is recovered on the "first pass", there isn't much >: problem. I should point out that I go to great lengths to ensure that >: data is recovered on the first pass - my data separators are more than >: the typical AGC-and-discriminator types found on conventional 7- >: and 9-track drives. > >From what I have hear people who deal with audio tape archives say, it is >tapes from the 1970s that are the problem. Apparently, the magnetic media >doesn't stay bound to the tape film. This is pretty common with 1/2" digital tapes from the 60's, 70's and 80's where the tape is either of low quality or has been stored in a poor environment (or both). As I indicated, the flaking isn't a problem as long as: 1. You can read the data off on the first pass 2. The head doesn't get too jammed up with gunk flaking off. 1/2" digital tapes are different in many ways from audio tapes - in particular in conventiona 7-track and 9-track drives the tape is expected to start/ stop up to a hundred times per second. This - combined with the greater speed of the tape when it is moving (100 to 200 IPS in a high-performance 9-track drive) - can exaggerate the flaking problem you're talking about under for less severe accelerate/start/stop conditions on audio tapes. >I do some digging and see what I can find out. I often read a couple thousand tapes a month for various customers and am doing fine - so don't do your digging for me - I've seen it all! As far as 1/2" media goes, the king is far and away 3M (now Imation) 700 Blackwatch. It's a backcoated tape that is of far higher quality than anything else on the market. Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca) ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ais.net!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!ptah.visi.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam! X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test62 (21 February 1998) From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Lines: 33 Message-ID: <0DsW.114$6A2.167025@ptah.visi.com> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 16:37:16 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: guild.plethora.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1998 11:37:16 CST In article <6g4c69$f1d@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, Susan Lesch wrote: >I don't now why it seems different for Usenet, and why this article >doesn't have a X-no-archive header. Still thinking about that one. It >may be because I pay for the privilege of publishing copyrighted >information on the Web, my provider has to distribute it, and so far my >Usenet participation, while still copyrighted, is free other than >dial-up service charges. If Usenet news had usage costs, which would >make it more private and less public access, then I might feel >differently about Deja News, reference.com and other services copying >my work. Well, one thing is, I generally feel that the purpose of posting to usenet is to distribute information which I want to last forever. I put things on a web page which may be topical, and thus, which I may want to expire. I'm glad someone archives what I say. If the year is >2300 when you read this, Hi! :) -s -- Copyright '98, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! Not speaking for my employer. Questions on C/Unix? Send mail for help. Visit my new ISP --- More Net, Less Spam! ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 7 Apr 1998 20:57:11 GMT Lines: 14 Message-ID: <6ge3v7$e4n$8@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: <6gbsg8$fcs@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: man-018.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X In article <352901BC.FE68D5A5@ccw.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: :> I also remember dimly some remark about AT&T losing the Unix :> copyright case against Berkley, because early copies had no :>copyright remark in them. which would be all very well, except at&t didn't lose - that's why FreeBSD had to be withdrawn; it had parts of System V in it. (out-of-court settlement, we believe; anyway, at&t got their way in a manner of speaking.) -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!34.los-angeles-15.ca.dial-access.att.net!user From: lesch@macvirus.com (Susan Lesch) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 8 Apr 1998 00:10:20 GMT Organization: none Lines: 9 Message-ID: <6gef9c$p71@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.64.133.34 In article , nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) wrote: > [Alexa-Internet Archive is] working with various archival organizations > like the Library of Congress to preserve the history of the Web. I don't know that this is true? The archive.org Web site mentions one collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, which so far as I know is not a government agency like the Library of Congress. The Smithsonian is, I think, a USA independent trust. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.241.0.194!news.wwa.com!not-for-mail From: Jude Crouch Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 8 Apr 1998 00:45:36 GMT Organization: Crouch Enterprises, Oak Park, IL Lines: 21 Message-ID: <6gehbg$38t$1@hirame.wwa.com> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6gef9c$p71@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: tekka.wwa.com User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4_WWA-980308 (Solaris2.6) (SunOS/5.6 (sun4m)) In comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html Susan Lesch wrote: : In article , nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) wrote: :> [Alexa-Internet Archive is] working with various archival organizations :> like the Library of Congress to preserve the history of the Web. : I don't know that this is true? The archive.org Web site mentions one : collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution, which so far as I know : is not a government agency like the Library of Congress. The Smithsonian : is, I think, a USA independent trust. The monies were bequeathed to the United States by James Smithson. It is an independent trust, not a government agency. Jude -- Jude Crouch (jcrouch@pobox.com) - Computing since 1967! Crouch Enterprises - Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting Oak Park, IL 708-848-0145 URL: http://www.pobox.com/~jcrouch/ ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-east.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!207.229.142.2!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.enteract.com!newsfeed.inetnebr.com!unlnews.unl.edu!cse.unl.edu!gberigan From: Greg Berigan Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 8 Apr 1998 01:02:14 GMT Organization: http://cse.unl.edu/~gberigan/ Lines: 20 Message-ID: <6geiam$qce$1@unlnews.unl.edu> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> NNTP-Posting-Host: cse.unl.edu In alt.folklore.computers, gberigan@cse.unl.edu (Greg Berigan) wrote: > Unfortunately it isn't available on my platform yet. I also don't like > the idea of downloading a special application for this when it could be > simply web-based. And second unfortunately, after installing it on a Win95 machine, the site I wanted to get the old version of wasn't archived there anyway. (Domain is now completely locked behind a password scheme, apparently under new ownership.) Also had problems with the Location bar of Netscape 4.05 after running it. Crash was trapped and patched, and then the Location bar would not open any URLs, requiring me to use the Open dialog to do the same thing. -- ,=<#)-=# (The War of the Worlds) ,_--//--_, _-~_-(####)-_~-_ "Did you see that Parkins boy's body in the tunnels?" "Just (#>_--'~--~`--_<#) the photos. Worst thing I've ever seen; kid had no face." ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!EU.net!news0.Belgium.EU.net!Belgium.EU.net!news.bel.alcatel.be!usenet From: Chris Gray Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 08 Apr 1998 09:30:36 +0200 Organization: Alcatel/Bell Lines: 22 Sender: grayc@btm0qt Message-ID: References: <6gbsg8$fcs@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net> <6ge3v7$e4n$8@irk.zetnet.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: btm0qt.se.bel.alcatel.be X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.4.37/XEmacs 19.16 lisard@zetnet.co.uk writes: > In article <352901BC.FE68D5A5@ccw.ch>, Neil Franklin wrote: > :> I also remember dimly some remark about AT&T losing the Unix > :> copyright case against Berkley, because early copies had no > :>copyright remark in them. > > which would be all very well, except at&t didn't lose - that's why > FreeBSD had to be withdrawn; it had parts of System V in it. > (out-of-court settlement, we believe; anyway, at&t got their way in a > manner of speaking.) Just to clarify: FreeBSD is alive and well and running a whole bunch of public servers, as well as my PC at home. Like its cousins NetBSD and OpenBSD, it is in large part descended from BSD 4.4 Lite, a set of "decontaminated" sources released by Berkeley in 1994. More info at www.freebsd.org (which I can't reach just now). -- Chris Gray ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Wed, 08 Apr 1998 14:24:20 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 73 Message-ID: <352B6C74.35F51EDF@ccw.ch> References: <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> <6gbi7l$9io$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote: > > On 1998-04-06 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch said: > :Actually I think that any non > :pay-for-read publication should automatically loose its > > what about copylefted source code? Copylefted is legally a copyright based license (GPL), where the holder simply gives up the right to restrict its spread and the right to derive an income from its use. So it would be affected. But not very much: It would lose the right to demand that the authorship remarks stay untouched. And of course the right to demand alteractions to be free, but see the SPI (software in public interest) license for a group that has allready dropped that requirement anyway. BTW: I an writing this on an Debian system, SPI came AFAIK from the Debian group, to combad GPLs limits, but has taken on an own life. > :default, as most people don't care for their posts staying readable > :after news server expire. After all, most Useneters write posts for > :them to be read! > > on the other hand, anyone who doesn't want their idiocy preserved for > posterity gets our applause. ;> What? My idiocities not archieved? Gosh! Massive loss for mankind. :-) > :AAeeehhhhh????? Demanding pay-for-read for covering authoring costs > :is understandable, even if I don't like it. But forbidding > :archiving of free-to-read Web pages because publishing them costed? > :I don't see the logic there. > > you have a point - however, archiving material that the original author > no longer wishes to have in the public view against the author's will > probably does violate copyright. Restricting because you don't want it to be seen any longer is a valid interest. Whether copyright includes a right to retract a work, I don't know. It sure would be impossible to implement (How many people archive all posts they recieve? At least those threads involving themselves?). > just because > someone chooses to display his artwork in a public forum doesn't make it > automatically public-domain. otherwise an awful lot of professional > artists are screwed. ;> If they are _only_ displaying in public (read: non payed) they won't be making any income from it, so they won't be losing anything (OK, to be precise, they would be losing zero :-)). If they are _also_ showing public parallel to commercial, then intent would have been shown, so it would not apply. And then there is always the question whether society requires _professional_ artists to the extent that it must encourage them with an law restricting itsself from using their work freely. Freeware seems to work good enough without professional authoring. Oops I am wandering massively off topic. Reboot user. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!newsfeed.nyu.edu!newsfeed.sgi.net!pitt.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!geest3 From: geest3+@pitt.edu (Gregg E Economou) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 8 Apr 1998 18:38:31 GMT Organization: University of Pittsburgh Lines: 16 Message-ID: <6ggg77$fbh@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: yak.labs.cis.pitt.edu Good CD's last ten years or so. floppies? Ive had decent floppies last a decade or more. I still have floppies from the first half of the '80s that are readable. glass MO platters have just about the longest life. (even the plastic ones are considered good for 30 years, though it hasnt been 30 years yet since the first one was made, so we cant tell yet ;) my $.02 gregg In article <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, David Jacoby wrote: > >I don't know how long it takes a floppy to die (for me, they die as soon as >I put 'em into DOS/Windows machines), and there are questions as to how long >CDs last, too. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-nyc.telia.net!nntp.abs.net!news.idt.net!novia!news.arc.nasa.gov!tulane.edu!bertrand!not-for-mail From: jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu (Jason F. McBrayer) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 09 Apr 1998 14:45:59 -0600 Organization: A Minor GNUisance Lines: 31 Message-ID: References: <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> <6gbi7l$9io$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <352B6C74.35F51EDF@ccw.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup61.tcs.tulane.edu X-No-Archive: yes X-Get-A-Real-Newsreader: X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.4.46/Emacs 19.33 >>>>> "NFrt" == Neil Franklin remove this writes: NFrt> lisard@zetnet.co.uk wrote: >> On 1998-04-06 Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch said: >> :Actually I think that any non >> :pay-for-read publication should automatically loose its >> what about copylefted source code? NFrt> Copylefted is legally a copyright based license (GPL), where the NFrt> holder simply gives up the right to restrict its spread and the NFrt> right to derive an income from its use. So it would be affected. The GPL doesn't say anything about whether you can derive an income from the use of the source code. It just says you can't restrict redistribution (and particularly that if you distribute binaries, you must distribute source, and derived products must be distributed under the same terms). Plenty of people derive incomes from the use of GPL'ed software (vis. Red Hat, Cygnus) without violating the terms of the GPL. GPL software is free in the sense of free speech, not of free beer. Interested parties can go to http://www.gnu.org/ for full and accurate information. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Jason F. McBrayer jmcbray@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu | | The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill | | forever. (R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ | ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!peer.news.zetnet.net!zetnet.co.uk!not-for-mail From: lisard@zetnet.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: 9 Apr 1998 19:34:47 GMT Lines: 20 Message-ID: <6gj7sn$l4i$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: man-023.dialup.zetnet.co.uk X-Everything: Net-Tamer V 1.08X On 1998-04-08 grayc@se.bel.alcatel.be said: :lisard@zetnet.co.uk writes: :> which would be all very well, except at&t didn't lose - that's why :> FreeBSD had to be withdrawn; it had parts of System V in it. :> (out-of-court settlement, we believe; anyway, at&t got their way :>in a manner of speaking.) :Just to clarify: FreeBSD is alive and well and running a whole :bunch of public servers, as well as my PC at home. Like its :cousins NetBSD and OpenBSD, it is in large part descended from BSD :4.4 Lite, a set of "decontaminated" sources released by Berkeley in :1994. whoops. did we mean 386BSD? one of the distributions, anyway, had to be pulled because of this. -- Communa (together) we remember... we'll see you falling you know soft spoken changes nothing to sing within her... ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1998 23:09:36 +0200 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 44 Message-ID: <352E8A90.BCC6B23C@ccw.ch> References: <3528067D.874CEF9A@ccw.ch> <6gbi7l$9io$3@irk.zetnet.co.uk> <352B6C74.35F51EDF@ccw.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) Jason F. McBrayer wrote: > > >>>>> "NFrt" == Neil Franklin remove this writes: > > NFrt> Copylefted is legally a copyright based license (GPL), where the > NFrt> holder simply gives up the right to restrict its spread and the > NFrt> right to derive an income from its use. So it would be affected. > > The GPL doesn't say anything about whether you can derive an income > from the use of the source code. It just says you can't restrict > redistribution (and particularly that if you distribute binaries, you > must distribute source, and derived products must be distributed under > the same terms). Hmmm. I was imprecice. I should have said: ... where the holder gives up the right to restrict its spread to those who provide him an income for its use. > Plenty of people derive incomes from the use of > GPL'ed software (vis. Red Hat, Cygnus) without violating the terms of > the GPL. Yes. But they derive this income from being payed for distributing (RH) or consulting (Cy). The original authors of the GPLed stuff do not get an payment for doing the writing (they possible get an donation, but no obligate paying). > GPL software is free in the sense of free speech, not of > free beer. From an programers/admins POV yes, they are guaranteed to get source and the freedom it gives. For most users it simply amounts to getting software without having to chose between paying or illegality. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence? ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news-penn.gip.net!news-fw.gip.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-backup-west.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!198.69.104.3!ddi2.digital.net!not-for-mail From: bjr7@freenet.tlh.fl.us (Benjamin Robinson) Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Digital Archaeologists? Message-ID: <352ea9d2.7402012@198.69.104.3> References: <35214BD0.15FB7483@on.spammer> <6g611p$pvm@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> <6g658o$h2n@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> <35280A26.93143D36@ccw.ch> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Lines: 22 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 21:31:50 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: max-roc3-94 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 17:31:50 EDT Organization: Florida Online In alt.folklore.computers, on the "Re: Digital Archaeologists?" thread, Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch wrote: >Well I would not use paper. For one _big_ reason: It is not computer >readable. Just think of the entire valuable contents of my harddisk all >printed out. What if the information were rendered in barcode (or similar) format? Future civilizations would be able to scan the code, and then store it in whatever format was convenient for them. This could be especially useful if the valuable contents of your harddisk contained binary-only information, like executable or ZIPped files. -- Benjamin Robinson bjr7@freenet.tlh.fl.us This message may or may not contain sarcastic content; your burden to decide "Words are very unnecessary; they can only do harm" - Depeche Mode