6237 Windward Drive Burke, VA 22015 January 28, 1989 Mr. Tony B. Anderson 3895 Bobolink Circle Reno, NV 89506 Dear Tony, I hope you don't mind my informality in addressing you as Tony. It is just so much easier to be on a first name basis. Thank you for the letter of January 20, 1989 explaining your position on the controversy addressed in my January Portable 100 column. CompuServe users tell me that you are planning to forward any feedback generated in your forum. I anxiously await that feedback so I can respond to it. I would appreciate getting the actual messages with your notation on whether the author of the message receives free time for his activities on CompuServe (other than upload time), whether he is paid for any service on CompuServe, or whether he is a person who pays for his time on CompuServe. These are all important factors regarding any special interests of those making the comments. Include your financial interests in this issue also. For example, do you receive a commission for time spent by subscribers when downloading? One thing that concerns me from what I have been told about the CompuServe message base is that several of the messages engage in character assassination and even slander of things not done, not proven, but just supposed. I would think that you, as a moderator, would make sure that the comments and opinions expressed stay at an intellectual level appropriate for a professional database service such as CompuServe. At some point, someone else attacked in a like manner might consider legal action against CompuServe, the people leaving the messages, and anyone else who permits such messages to continue. I, for one, am not considering such an action, but I do demand posted apologies from those involved, including one from you for allowing it to occur. Also from feedback I have received, it is apparent that the issue is not adequately presented on CompuServe. It appears I am being hung from the highest tree for things I never did, things I never said, and things I never would do. Making bizarre analogies to taking commercial cassettes and video tapes and selling them serves no purpose either as no one in their right mind would believe they were entitled to do that. It is obvious that some of the respondents to your original posting of the issue have based their response solely on how you presented it, never read my article, or didn't pay very good attention to what I really said and what my position in this matter really is. For example, one person on CompuServe says that he puts a restriction in his programs and is ready and waiting to take me to court if I ever use any of them. I have emphatically stated that I would never use a program that was so restricted. Phil Wheeler complains that I seem to think I have a right to continue to use his programs. I have stated just the opposite. As soon as he wrote me and requested removal of his programs from my distribution disk, I removed them. His programs went out on only six or seven disks. He has that right to keep me from distributing his program regardless of whether I agree with his reasoning. I will continue to try and persuade him to change his opinion, though, because I think his programs are very good and important for the Model 100/200 community. My March column, which was sent to Portable 100 on December 31st covers some of these things. I am including an MS-DOS disk with a file copy of my January column that you may post so that everyone can be aware of my position and what has happened. You have my permission to do this and I have also gotten permission from Terry Kepner, though you may want to leave a message to Mike Nugent to confirm this. Please also post this letter. Hopefully you will also break up parts of this letter into quotable pieces that can be placed in several messages in the message base. I am also sending a file copy of my original letter to Phil Wheeler and his reply. His position has apparently changed from what he replied to me. Another thing I will send is a copy of a letter I sent to Wayne Day at the end of November 1988 for advance comment on my January column. I don't know if it was ever forwarded to him from CompuServe, but I received an acknowledgement from CompuServe on its content. I sent identical letters to Dave Thomas of GEnie and Rich Hanson of Club 100. Please urge those who wish to comment to acknowledge that they have at least read the article. I would suggest that you reread the January article, separate the issues part by part, analyze them, and have discussions on CompuServe to respond to each issue. I would also hope you can offer positive suggestions on how to clear up this dilemma by responding to what I call, "A possible solution" with proposals of your own. Just to clear up a couple of misconceptions, I request you post the following in messages: Response by Tom Quindry re: Legal Consensus. The legal consensus expressed in my January column was not generated or initiated by me. Terry Kepner requested an informal opinion from a lawyer he knows who specializes in software copyright law. Terry was concerned over liabilities that may be the responsibility of Portable 100. This opinion was sought by Terry after Phil Wheeler complained about his programs. This opinion was not in my original draft to Portable 100 and Terry asked me to include it in my open letter. This opinion, by the way, expanded the scope of what I would have considered suitable for inclusion before receiving it. Response by Tom Quindry re: possible Copyright violation with regard to XMDPW5.DO and XMDPW5.BA (including XMDPW5.CO) There is no statement of copyright, nor a statement of restriction of distribution in these files. In fact, Phil Wheeler apparently removed the copyright notice that I have since discovered to appear in XMD100.CO by John Chenoweth. One can only assume that Phil Wheeler had John Chenoweth's permission to modify his program and remove the copyright, though from Phil's letter I find that he was unable to contact Chenoweth over the past year (another point I made in my January article re: contacting authors). I am including the files as they appear on a local BBS. I downloaded them again recently from a local BBS to double check what is there and show you exactly what is on-line there. I don't alter files and these are not altered. Additionally, John Chenoweth states in other files concerning his xmodem program that it is his wish to have the program shared. I have never seen any restriction stated in files I have by Phil Wheeler. When one modifies other people's copyrighted works and doesn't state whether he had permission to do so, and that it is restricted, one can only assume that the original author wants it distributed and has also given Phil Wheeler permission to modify his program. I put copyrights in some of my files so I can control modification, not distribution. Phil Wheeler can't have it both ways. If I am liberalizing an interpretation, so is he. I am sending some of my files for inclusion in the CompuServe database for distribution. In some of my programs I have made no statement. In others I have both the words, "Copyright" and "Public Domain." It doesn't really matter what I have stated, though. Just the fact that I put it on a public forum without a statement of restriction allows people to use it, pass it on, and even distribute it on a disk with other programs where they charge a fee for distribution. CompuServe charges a fee for distribution based on time usage. Rich Hanson of Club 100 has given his viewpoint on this issue which will appear in my March column without my comment on it. His position on determining the status of a program goes further than mine. Even when I get a program from Club 100, I still carefully consider its status before using it. Response by Tom Quindry re: Phil Wheeler's letter in Portable 100 I quote from Phil's letter. "While I, personally, would be perfectly happy to see the XMDPWn series released to the public domain, I believe J.R. Chenoweth's copyright to still be in force. .... And there is a broader issue. The best place to get that, and any of my other programs, is in the Model 100 Forum. That is where I provide updates and support. ....While this is not a Compuserve project per se, J.R. Chenoweth's program has been enhanced by myself and other members along the lines he suggested, and beyond -- with the Model 100 Forum as the mechanism of focusing these individual efforts. The Forum provides a "memory", permitting continued software development and support even though an individual programmer (like Mr. Chenoweth or myself) may leave the Model 100/102/200 ranks. This contribution cannot be matched by any other distribution approach, however laudable in intent." I am also including files I later downloaded from GEnie which I have renamed XMDPW5_G.100 and XMDPW5_G.DO to note GEnie as the source. Dave Thomas of GEnie arranged for me to have press kit access on GEnie for two weeks in September. One has an incorrect date on it. Possibly caused by my word processor after I examined it. One interesting matter to note, the address of the uploader is PWHEELER as shown in a GEnie directory listing that I have. Did PWHEELER get permission from Chenoweth to upload it there or was it implied to be unrestricted distribution? Several other CompuServe files were uploaded by the person using the PWHEELER address. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You see, the issue is not clear cut. If PWHEELER doesn't stand for Phil Wheeler, then he has a much larger issue than mine to contend with. Response by Tom Quindry re: CompuServe Service Agreement et al. Several CompuServe users that I know tell me they have never signed such an agreement. On the issue of "Personal Use only" for all programs downloaded from CompuServe, no one I know believes he is not allowed to upload it elsewhere unless there is a statement to that effect. I think that CompuServe's compilation copyright only means that one cannot advertise that he is selling the same thing as CompuServe i.e., the compiled works of the CompuServe database in total or a section of it. (see my January column). I do not believe individual programs fall in this category. Anyway, that is an issue for CompuServe to clarify and/or act on, not you. I sent Wayne Day an advance copy of my January column in November '88. I received a response from CompuServe which will appear in my March column. CompuServe knows my position and the issues that would concern them and they have made no such claim. In fact they are considering giving me time on CompuServe for this purpose. It would be good advertising. Response by Tom Quindry re: profiteering I have never stated that my distribution was non-profit. My original submission to Portable 100 for January was that I didn't do it for a profit motive. Portable 100 edited that to "not for profit" which unfortunately changes the meeting somewhat but still does not mean non-profit. Everyone deserves some payment for their time and effort and what I get over and above material costs doesn't even really cover that. You also have to consider cost of programs I bought. (I bought all of the programs in the Club 100 library even though Rich Hanson would have given them to me.) I have phone costs, equipment and repair costs, and many other incidentals that occur including sending a replacement disk if one gets damaged in the mail. Writing a column like this, especially when related to the Model 100/200, takes about three times longer than any other articles I have ever written. Yet, I get paid half of what I could get from any other magazine of this type for the article. When you consider the Portable 100 payment plus anything I recover financially from charging to distribute these programs, you should be aware that I still do not make up the difference. I don't even think I get minimum wage. You also have to consider the extra time it takes for other things. I have time consuming things like responding to reader questions and responding to this issue. I am not charging for the programs, but for the method of distribution which is no different than organizations like PC-Sig or Public Brand Software (TM), many of which are commercial operations. Even non-profit organizations have paid employees, by the way. Response by Tom Quindry re: Programs for my article and distribution on disk. I urge authors of programs on CompuServe and elsewhere to make their intentions known to me. If they want me to include them in my column and distribution send me the programs and/or a list of what I can use. If I can't use certain programs, give me the names of those also. I will respect everyone's wishes if I know them. Otherwise I will must make my own interpretation. I really appreciate your giving me this opportunity to further explain my position on this. I am truly interested in keeping the Model 100/200 computers viable perhaps for a few extra years. I have received a few letters from readers, all supportive except for yours. Even with those on CompuServe discussing this issue, though, there is no overwhelming outcry either for or against to convince me whether I am right or wrong. Sincerely, Thomas L. Quindry (Tom) f