This is NOT a keymaker, just a generic unlimited
keyfile ...

Well, that's what I meant. His website is rather clear on the release of this keyfile though, and I quote:

(from the page: http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/inspecta.html)

I am releasing an unlimited key in the following URL. Be sure to read
the README document enclosed in the archive.

...and that "README" file clearly states:

===================== LICENSE & COPYRIGHT =====================

This file and the accompanying README are copyright (c) 1997
by David Nugent. Distribution via any means other than
downloading from my web page is strictly prohibited. This
means that it MAY NOT BE POSTED FOR DOWNLOAD ON A BULLETIN
BOARD, FTP SITE OR ANYONE ELSE'S WEB PAGE OR PUBLISHED VIA
CDROM, DISKETTE OR SIMILAR DISTRIBUTION MEDIA without explicit
written consent of the author.

===============================================================

his site has no restictions whatsoever on distribution of this, so

You are very, very wrong. Again, read the "README" file in the archive.
I don't think it could be much clearer.

You should do a "replace" on the file releases to clean this up, at least that's what I'd do.


--gary

--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: bloom county bbs * dearborn,mi * 313-582-0888 (1:2410/400)

Missed that one <g> but as it's almost 5 years old I
doubt he cares anymore,

Umm, it doesn't matter if it's 100 years old, you should ALWAYS respect the wishes of the authors, especially when releasing on the Filegate.

It's Authors First there.

but I'll try to reach him and find out. He left FIDONet in 1997 ...

That should have been done first. Sorry to sound stern about it, but it's the pet peeves that you crossed into...

1) Don't re-release (which InspectA is.. it was hatched ages ago already)
2) Don't go against author requests regarding distribution

3) Don't modify original archives.


You did all three things, which you really shouldn't. :-/

--gary

--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: bloom county bbs * dearborn,mi * 313-582-0888 (1:2410/400)

* An ongoing debate between Gary Gilmore and Ben Ritchey rages on ...

GG: > Umm, it doesn't matter if it's 100 years old, you should ALWAYS
GG: > respect the wishes of the authors, especially when releasing on the

That's your opinion ... and you can't know anything, realistically, from something almost 10 years old. If you had read the entire thing you would know that he stated ANYONE could use his package for FREE. I'm hardly going to waste time having people pull an archive that is in all likelyhood, valid.

I rely on common sense: any software Author who releases an unlimited "Free" key for his/her software, and makes it PUBLICALLY available, can't be too worried about who uses/gets his software, period.

With all respect for David, the only reason I can think of for his obsure clause would be to provide a means for changing his mind later and charging for something he had already published as being "FREE". This is, in and of itself, highly unethical.

GG: > That should have been done first. Sorry to sound stern about it, but

Never said different, and you can sound anyway you want, it won't change my mind ...

GG: > 3) Don't modify original archives.

I modify ALL archives, if deemed necessary, as I see fit.

--
Be well,

: Ben
: {http://www.geocities.com/benritchey/index.htm}
:
+ WildCat! Board 24/7 (337) 232-4155 33.6kBps 5GB Files

---
* Origin: FIDONet - The Positronium Repository (1:2320/38.5)

BEN RITCHEY (1:2320/38.5) wrote to GARY GILMORE at 07:15 on 28 Jan 2002:

With all respect for David, the only reason I can think of for his
obsure clause would be to provide a means for changing his mind
later and charging for something he had already published as being
"FREE". This is, in and of itself, highly unethical.

I obtained my copy of InspectA some years ago before this issue arose. However,
did you ever give some thought to the proposition that David wanted people to do a bit of work to get the free key?

I also note that David was rather bitter because InspectA was a program which people should have registered but obviously didn't. I suppose a lot of Fidonet
nodes don't need to look at their mail packets but I've never seen anything as useful for looking st them.

Take care,

Steven Horn (shorn@yknet.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: North_of_60.dyndns.org, Whitehorse, YT, Canada (1:17/67)