From randy@psg.com Mon Jun 21 09:56:35 1993 Received: from rip.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1) id AA12910; Mon, 21 Jun 93 09:56:21 -0700 Received: by rip.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0o7pAC-000302C; Mon, 21 Jun 93 09:56 PDT Message-Id: From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: from RGN17 (fwd) To: tomj@fido.wps.com (Tom Jennings) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 09:56:12 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 11824 Status: OR Forwarded message: From m2xenix.psg.com!lisa Mon Jun 21 00:28:54 1993 Message-Id: Subject: from RGN17 To: randy@m2xenix.psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 93 0:28:47 PDT From: Lisa Gronke Message Area 21: Echo RGN17 Sysop Chat #126 18 Jun 93 23:09:00 [2] From: Alex Stuart To: All Subj: Nodelist shrinkwrap agreement * Message originally: From: Alex Stuart To : Dallas Hinton Date: 18-06-93 Area: "Net 340 Sysop Conference (Fido)" * Forwarded by Alex Stuart using RemoteAccess 2.00.g1+ * Original via netmail > AS> I've got real concerns about the 'shrinkwrap' header on this > AS> weeks nodelist, as on a quick reading it purports to > AS> contractually bar me from pursuing, or assisting in pursing, > AS> remedies related to breach of copyright in the use of mail > AS> processing software. I'm already under contractual > AS> obligations which, under certain forseable circumstances > AS> would put me in exactly that position, and as a result on a > AS> strict reading of the licence agreement in the nodelist I'm > AS> barred from using the nodelist. > If you are NOW barred from using it, you were last > week too! Want to give me more details? The provision wasn't in last weeks nodelist - it's added in this weeks nodediff. You'll have now gotten the file I distributed to my net, which gives more detailed comments. My real problem with it is the way in which this was was done, which certainly caught me by surprize, and I gather you :-). > AS> While I think I grab the intent behind the addition, the > AS> whole thing is badly drafted, internally inconsistent, > AS> almost certainly ineffective in most jurisdictions and > AS> possibly, as it stands now, illegal in some jurisdictions, > AS> and hence its distribution would itself be a violation of > AS> policy. > I don't agree. I would appreciate it if you would > cite specifics and/or provide alternative wording? I'm assuming you haven't actually read the bit I'm talking about, which was not in last weeks nodelist, but will be introduced by today's nodediff for the first time. What it does - leaving aside the drafting errors, ambiguity as between who is the licensor and the holder of copyright, is to porport to impose conditions on the use of the nodelist: ;S By using this nodelist, and by agreeing to be listed in this ;S nodelist, the user and/or listed sysop agrees to hold Fidonet and ;S it's co-ordinators harmless for all errors, omissions, changes, and ;S the introduction of any flags which denote changes in system status ;S (down, hold, etc.). This bit is so broad as to be meaningless. But that's not really a problem ;S standards. The threat of any legal action by the operator of any ;S listed system directed against the operator of any listed system ;S regarding any matter related to Fidonet or the co-ordination of ;S Fidonet shall be considered proper and just cause for the deletion ;S of that system's listing in the nodelist. ;S ;S The threat of legal action described above by any user of the ;S nodelist shall also be just cause for the immediate revocation of the ;S limited license allowing the use of the nodelist. The bit above, though, purports to make agreeing not to "threaten legal action" against "any other operator of any listed system" a condition precedent to using the nodelist if the "matter is related to FidoNet." If taken seriously, that has several affects. For example, the distribution of echomail is a 'matter related to FidoNet' It is done by software in which, in some cases, people hold copyright. Indeed I am the Canadian distributor of some such software. While using that software in violation of its licence agreement would normally be actionable, or dealable with by threat of action, as it is being used for the distribution of echomail, which is a "matter related to FidoNet" by sysops who are "operators of listed systems" as I am also such an operator I cannot threaten, or take, legal action against people who use the software in breach of the licence agreement which I am, in fact, contractually obligated to do. Therefore, if the agreement in todays nodelist were binding on me, I could not, in faith, use the nodelist. That is a general problem that affects many people throughout the world. Worse, the effect of the provision is, with respect to software used to process mail within FidoNet, is to effectivley create an immunity from liability from illegal use, as the complainants and copyright holders are also, generally, listed in the the nodelist. That is, on quick consideration, sufficient to make distribution of the nodelist arguably a violation of policy. But there is a broader violation of policy. See the end of this message. There is a more general problem with respect to removing all sorts of other rights from sysops - in some cases with, I'd suggest, catestrophic results. Under Canadian law as it now stands a sysop is probably liable under a variety of conditions to his users, even for messages which did not originate on his system. The effect of this provision, if taken seriously, is to remove the possiblity of making a 'claim over' or third partying the sysop/and or the person who actually wrote the message on another system. Whether that is a good thing, or a bad thing, is something I strongly think individual sysops should have the oportunity to decide - certainly reducing their rights without advising them and letting them consider the matter is I think highly improper. Perhaps worse - it may well be the case that the provision in question would allow an insurance company to deny coverage for an action against a sysop on the basis that by using the nodelist and by thereby agreeing to waive the right to bring a third party action they had, in advance, prejudiced the capacity of the insurer to conduct a defence. Most insurance policies that would provide insurance coverage to sysops for claims - and many householder policies do - contain a clause that would have exactly that result. The result of that would be that some sysop would pay money that would, but for the provisions of the nodelist, have been paid by an insurance company. Still possibly worse - assuming that happend, and a sysop was denied coverage on that basis (and having once upon a time been in the insurance law biz that's a real possibility - I know for sure some companies that would be advised by counsel to deny on that basis), the sysop might then have an action as against the NCs RCs, and ZC, who distributed the nodelist without adequetly advising the individual sysops of the consequences. In other words, while it might create a defence for an individual sysop, it might well actually create a a cause of action as against the NC who distributed the nodelist, because the test for whether they would defended by the provision would not be the same as the test with respect to the sysops loss that arguably caused the liablity when an insurance company denied coverage. Anyway, I'm sure you get the point. In my view it was a) extremely ill considered, and b) improperly implimented. Until I hear the contrary from the members of my net, for whom I hold copyright to the nodelist segment for net340 in trust, I will be taking the position that any nodelist containing the net340 segment is in violation of the copyright of the net if an attempt is made to impose the licence agreement contained in today's nodediff. The existing nodelist contains a nodelist segment for which I hold copyright, and complete reservation of rights. (My modified agreement makes it more particular, but my existing agreement was sufficient to protect the intersts of my net.) As the existing nodelist contains a segment to which our net holds copyright, I am taking the position that an attempt to modify the existing nodelist in the way in which the current nodediff does, would make use of the the nodelist, after application of the nodediff, a violation of our copyright. Hence use of that nodelist would be illegal. Hence distribution of the current nodediff, which is an attempt to modify the nodelist in exactly that way, is a use of FidoNet prohibited by policy. :-). Again - I haven't heard from my net as yet, and I view myself but as custodian of their interests. At the moment though I must take the position above. -- Alex --- FastEcho/386 B0614 * Origin: Quantum Leap Victoria BC (604)595-4407 [HST/V.32bis] (1:340/30) Message Area 21: Echo RGN17 Sysop Chat #127 18 Jun 93 23:11:00 [2] From: Alex Stuart To: All Subj: Nodediff * Message originally: From: Alex Stuart To : Gerald Albion Date: 18-06-93 Area: "Net 340 Sysop Conference (Fido)" * Forwarded by Alex Stuart using RemoteAccess 2.00.g1+ * Copy Forwarded from "340 Sysop" to Dallas Hinton, (1:153/715) GA>I just read it. What a bunch of utter trash! If someone GA>sends me an ANSi bomb or trojan via Fidonet, I can be thrown GA>out of the net for trying to press charges or file a civil GA>suit? It would appear to entail that, and I'll give some other examples, in addition to the ones I've sent to Dallas in the message I copied here. While I understand the intention to protect sysops, it seems to me to have seriously overlooked the extent to which it detracts from sysops rights. GP>Are the powers that be in Fidonet SO supreme that Whatever the merits of the intent, my real objection is that it seems to me an attempt to affect sysops rights, and to affect policy very substantially, without advising sysops, and indeed essentially by way of a trick. Dallas, apparently, was unaware of what has happened, and I have no idea of the actual source. I assume it was simply ill thought out, however doing it without advice or consideration from all those affected - some of whom may be very dramatically affected, and indeed in some countries it may purport to require sysops to break the law. GA>Policy supersedes the law of the land? This is the worst GA>abomination since P4. I must really like net 340 locally, GA>because every time I read another edict from above the RC GA>level, I start to wonder how I can stomach being in the net. GA>[vitriolic rant from hell mode OFF] GA>Back to reality, I must say I admire your levelheadedness in GA>being able to stay neutral with respect to the latest speech GA>from the reichstag. Perhaps you see some redeeming quality GA>that I don't? My view of the role of an NC is that he is the custodian and guardian of the interests of the net. Until the sysops in the net have a chance to consider this, I don't want to have it decided for them by fiat. That is the real reason I am upset, but it is also important for me to let the net decide. I can give advice, but the decision as to whether, and how, this net opposes this is up to them. In the interim, my position will be to preserve the status quo. If necessary, I will argue that Friday's nodediff cannot be used, and that the nodelist produced by it would be a violation of Canadian law as it would distribute and use material to which this net holds copyright in contravention of any right to do so. I'll back off that position if that becomes the position of the net. However, until I know that postion I see little alternative but to prevent the use of a nodediff which would change sysops rights in this net without their knowledge, consideration, and consent. If it is the will of the net, I will procede to enforce copyright and policy. -- Alex. --- FastEcho/386 B0614 * Origin: Quantum Leap Victoria BC (604)595-4407 [HST/V.32bis] (1:340/30) From randy@psg.com Mon Jun 21 14:18:56 1993 Received: from rip.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1) id AA13837; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:18:40 -0700 Received: by rip.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #5) id m0o7tGD-000304C; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:18 PDT Message-Id: From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush) Subject: Re: from RGN17 (fwd) To: tomj@wps.com (Tom Jennings) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 14:18:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9306212108.AA13758@wps.com> from "Tom Jennings" at Jun 21, 93 02:08:29 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 7080 Status: OR > I will try to track this one down. I'll get that damned legal notice out > of there. I am not positive that I disagrre with their intent, although I am suspicious. What I do disagree with is changing the notice without even discussing it with you. > Can you mail me the Z1/R1 info from the nodelist? I don't have a > nodelist here... I wrote George Peace informally to see if he knows > anything... Sure. Also note an Australian phone number on node 1:1/20. Also note that you can just send mail to bsatti@psg.com and it will work. ;A FidoNet Nodelist for Friday, June 18, 1993 -- Day number 169 : 59223 ;A ;A The FidoNet(r) NodeList, a listing of the systems within FidoNet. ;A ;A Copyright 1993, Fido Software. All rights reserved except for the following: ;A ;A o The FidoNet NodeList is compiled so that computer systems within FidoNet ;A may communicate with each other. Use and intra-FidoNet distribution ;A rights are granted to all FidoNet system operators for the purposes of ;A communication within FidoNet or applying for a FidoNet node number. ;A ;A o This is a compilation of individual nodelist segments contributed by the ;A drafters and compilers of those segments. Contribution of these segments ;A to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the contributors. ;A ;A Other use without express written consent is not allowed. For other use, ;A please contact Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco, CA 94107 USA. ;A ;A Fido(r), FidoNet(r), and the dog with diskette are registered marks of Tom ;A Jennings and Fido Software. ;S ;S This nodelist is provided without charge or any other consideration ;S to all Fidonet sysops under a limited license, as follows: ;S ;S By using this nodelist, and by agreeing to be listed in this ;S nodelist, the user and/or listed sysop agrees to hold Fidonet and ;S it's co-ordinators harmless for all errors, omissions, changes, and ;S the introduction of any flags which denote changes in system status ;S (down, hold, etc.). ;S ;S Fidonet is a collection of volunteers who have all agreed to allow ;S the use of their systems for the exchange of electronic mail, and is ;S not a corporation or an individual. Fidonet relies on the cooperation ;S of individuals who voluntarily agree to adhere to certain technical ;S standards. The threat of any legal action by the operator of any ;S listed system directed against the operator of any listed system ;S regarding any matter related to Fidonet or the co-ordination of ;S Fidonet shall be considered proper and just cause for the deletion ;S of that system's listing in the nodelist. ;S ;S The threat of legal action described above by any user of the ;S nodelist shall also be just cause for the immediate revocation of the ;S limited license allowing the use of the nodelist. ;S ;S NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE ;S -------------------------------------------- ;S | ;S | ;S -------------------------------------------- ;S ;S You can request the most recent nodelist/nodediff from your Network ;S or Region Coordinator. They are usually available with the "magic name" ;S of NODELIST or NODEDIFF. ;S ;S Please check the END of the nodelist for additional technical information. ;S ;S ; Zone,1,North_America,Surrey_BC,Bob_Satti,1-604-589-8562,9600,CM,XA,H14,V42b ,1,Dead_Mail_&_FNews_Relay,New_Westminster_BC,Geno_DellaMattia,1-604-540-9598,9600,H16,V32b,V42b,XA,CM ,2,Europe_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO ,3,Oceania_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO ,4,Latin_America_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO ,5,Africa_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO ,6,Asia_Gate,Portland_OR,R_Bush,1-503-297-9145,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,LO ,20,Fido_Tech_Stand,Doveton_VIC_Aust,David_Nugent,61-3-792-3507,9600,CM,XA,PEP ,23,FidoNews,FidoNews_Editor,Editor,1-519-570-4176,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32,V42b ,30,Inter-Network_Coord,San_Franciso_CA,Tim_Pozar,1-415-695-0759,2400,CM,XB ,31,fidonet.org,Piscataway_NJ,Hostmaster,1-908-981-9190,9600,CM,XA,XP,MO,HST,Guucp ,101,FrontDoor_Help_USA,Tulsa_OK,Bruce_Bodger,1-918-254-6618,9600,CM,XA,HST,V32b,V42b ,102,BinkleyTERM_Help,Sugar_Land_TX,Bob_Juge,1-713-980-9671,9600,CM,XA,HST,V32b,V42b ,103,TBBS_Help,Raleigh_NC,Paul_OKeefe,1-919-772-7806,9600,CM,XA,V32b ,104,RBBS-PC_Help,Colton_CA,Rod_Bowman,1-909-381-6013,9600,CM,XA,H14,V32b,V42b ,105,PCBoard_Help,Passaic_NJ,James_Roy,1-201-471-6391,9600,CM,XP,HST,V32b ,109,Amiga_Help,Ottawa_ON,Russell_McOrmond,1-613-230-2282,9600,CM,XW,MO,V32b,V42b ,111,SEAdog/SEAmail_HELP,Butler_NJ,Charles_Lekowski,1-201-283-1806,9600,CM,XP,HST,V32 ,112,XRS_Help,Charleston_SC,Mike_Ratledge,1-803-853-6687,9600,CM,HST,XA ,113,OPUS_Help,Titusville_FL,Christopher_Baker,1-407-383-1372,9600,CM,HST,XX,V32b,V42b ,114,QuickBBS_Help,Houma_LA,Rick_Luquette,1-504-851-4230,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32b,V42b ,117,Fido_V12_Software_Help,Centreville_VA,Tim_Jasionowski,1-703-222-0180,2400,CM,XB ,118,Qtach2/QNX_Help,Jamison_PA,Thomas_Lynch,1-215-491-0919,9600,CM,HST,XA ,119,Maximus_Help,North_Bay_ON,Jesse_David_Hollington,1-705-494-9329,9600,CM,XA,H14,V32b,V42b ,120,RemoteAccess_Help_USA,Tulsa_OK,Bruce_Bodger,1-918-254-6618,9600,CM,XA,HST,V32b,V42b ,122,TIMS_Help,Littleton_CO,G_W_Funk,1-303-973-9454,9600,CM,XA,HST ,124,GSBBS_Help,Holcomb_NY,Michelangelo_Jones,1-716-657-7443,9600,CM,XA,V32,V42 ,130,Armadillo_Help,London_ON,Erik_Sea,1-519-672-7661,9600,CM,XW,H96 ,133,InterMail_Help,Pembroke_Pines_FL,Patrik_Bertilsson,1-305-436-1884,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32b,V42b,MO ,137,EzyCom_Help,Dallas_TX,Ken_Givens,1-214-641-1136,9600,CM,XX,HST,V32b,V42b ,138,RoboBoard_Help,Kanata_ON,Jason_Dever,1-613-592-9054,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b ,139,WPL_Language_Support,Ottawa_ON,Russell_McOrmond,1-613-230-2282,9600,CM,XW,V32b,V42b,MO ,140,GBBS_Help,Pittsburgh_PA,Greg_Dinert,1-412-937-9498,9600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b ,141,WME_Help,Sacramento_CA,Jason_Fesler,1-916-483-8486,9600,CM,XA,V32b ,168,D'Bridge_Help,Gainesville_FL,Arthur_Greenberg,1-904-372-7408,9600,CM,XX,H16 ,200,Nat'l_Echo_Coord,Des_Moines_IA,Dan_Buda,1-515-964-7937,9600,CM,HST ,201,EchoList_Coord,Toms_River_NJ,Mike_Fuchs,1-908-506-0472,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32 ,210,Reg_10_EchoCoord,Tustin_CA,David_Garrett,1-714-838-6539,9600,CM,HST ,211,Reg_11_EchoCoord,Milwaukee_WI,Bruce_Berna,1-414-384-1701,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32,V42b ,212,Reg_12_EchoCoord,Ottawa_ON,Ken_Wilson,1-613-739-8634,9600,CM,HST,XA,V42b ,213,Reg_13_EchoCoord,Oakton_VA,Miles_Hoover,1-703-620-3947,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b,MO ,214,Reg_14_EchoCoord,Iowa_City_IA,John_Johnson,1-319-337-9878,9600,V32b,V42b,XA,CM ,215,Reg_15_EchoCoord,Phoenix_AZ,John_Valentyn,1-602-780-9180,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32,V42b ,216,Reg_16_EchoCoord,Westwood_MA,Jim_Greely,1-617-551-0495,9600,CM,HST,XR ,217,Reg_17_EchoCoord,Vancouver_BC,Adrian_Walker,1-604-683-0422,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b ,218,Reg_18_EchoCoord,Millington_TN,Steve_Cross,1-901-876-3270,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b ,219,Reg_19_EchoCoord,Tulsa_OK,Bruce_Bodger,1-918-254-6618,9600,CM,HST,XA,V32b,V42b -30- From tomj Mon Jun 21 14:31:00 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1) id AA13906; Mon, 21 Jun 93 14:30:35 -0700 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9306212130.AA13906@wps.com> Subject: nodelist copyright To: bsatti@psg.com Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1993 14:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 637 Status: O I see that someone hacked the nodelist header, adding a bunch of legalese boilerplate of dubious value (none outside the US) and definitely without contacting me, the copyright holder. Can you tell me who was responsible for this, so that I can get them to remove it ASAP? If there's a need or desire for added language in the nodelist, it's certainly open for discussion; anyone is free to contact me at any time. However in the mean time that stuff has to come out of there until it's finalized. If you have trouble contacting me, ask Randy Bush. -- Tom Jennings -- tomj@wps.com -- World Power Systems -- San Francisco, Calif. From Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org Tue Jun 22 11:40:39 1993 Received: from rain.psg.com by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1) id AA16370; Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:40:24 -0700 Received: by rain.psg.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #3) id m0o8DBN-000ayIC; Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:35 PDT Received: by puddle.fidonet.org (mailout1.26); Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:34:13 PDT Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 09:08:52 PDT Message-Id: <79380.2C2750A5@puddle.fidonet.org> From: Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Satti) Subject: nodelist copyright To: tomj@wps.com X-Mailer: mailout v1.26 released Status: OR tomj@wps.com wrote in a message to Bob Satti: tc> From m2xenix!fido.wps.com!tomj tc> From: tomj@wps.com (Tom Jennings) tc> I see that someone hacked the nodelist header, adding a tc> bunch of legalese boilerplate of dubious value (none outside tc> the US) and definitely without contacting me, the copyright tc> holder. While my intentions were good, things didn't work out as planned. I never intended to infringe upon your copyright. As soon it was brought to my attention that it had appeared in the nodelist, I removed it from my make files. tc> Can you tell me who was responsible for this, so that I can tc> get them to remove it ASAP? I am the culprit, and it was removed from my make files as soon as one of Region 17's NC's noticed it there and contacted me. My apologies for any concern this may well have caused you. tc> If there's a need or desire for added language in the tc> nodelist, it's certainly open for discussion; anyone is free tc> to contact me at any time. Thank you Tom. tc> However in the mean time that tc> stuff has to come out of there until it's finalized. It's gone already, it just can't come out of the nodelist until I produce the next diff. tc> If you have trouble contacting me, ask Randy Bush. I hope this gets through. In the meantime, once again I am terribly sorry for the faux pas. Take Care Bob -- uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!153!6!Bob.Satti Internet: Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org From tomj Tue Jun 22 12:13:16 1993 Received: by fido.wps.com (5.67/9999.1) id AA16425; Tue, 22 Jun 93 12:12:49 -0700 From: tomj (Tom Jennings) Message-Id: <9306221912.AA16425@wps.com> Subject: Re: nodelist copyright To: Bob.Satti@f6.n153.z1.fidonet.org (Bob Satti) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 12:12:47 -0700 (PDT) Cc: tomj (Tom Jennings) In-Reply-To: <79380.2C2750A5@puddle.fidonet.org> from "Bob Satti" at Jun 22, 93 09:08:52 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 296 Status: OR > It's gone already, it just can't come out of the nodelist until > I produce the next diff. I understand this. If changes to the nodelist become necessary, please contact me. Thanks for your prompt message. -- Tom Jennings -- tomj@wps.com -- World Power Systems -- San Francisco, Calif.