Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!vortex!lauren@rand-unix.ARPA From: lauren@rand-unix.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: software ethics Message-ID: <8893@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Sun, 3-Mar-85 22:04:22 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.8893 Posted: Sun Mar 3 22:04:22 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Mar-85 04:05:54 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Lines: 28 If someone came up with a new way of doing top-down parsing that took substantial work on their part and represented a potential commercial advantage, I see nothing wrong with their placing it under trade-secret protections, given the lack of very useful protection alternatives. If someone invented a neat new way to do process scheduling and wanted to protect it, once again, given the lack of alternatives to prevent ripoffs, it also might be a good candidate for trade secret protection. This doesn't say that nobody else is allowed to invent other methods of doing process scheduling and use their independently created scheduling creations as they see fit. David, if you'd like to contribute to a discussion regarding software ethics and how best to protect the works of individuals and companies who create software from illicit sales and information theft, I'd be glad to welcome your input. But let's do this either in direct mail or on a different list. I offer the other readers of this message the same invitation. These issues are far ranging and need to be discussed, but not in this list which now probably represents more traffic in most ARPA mailboxes than all the other lists put together. Anyone interested in these discussions, please let me know (by direct mail) and I'll see about starting up a list. Please do *not* reply-to or CC: such messages to this list. --Lauren--