And half of the FTSC is dormant anyway ...
And half of the FTSC is dormant anyway ...
Without a gnarly whip-crackin' Administrator nothing else matters.
Amazing to read the restricted FTSC-area after Michiel's resignation
... no leader at the helm anymore and anmbitions run high to replace
him ... but the main question remains unanswered ... is there still a future for an FTSC ?
[ On 2018-11-03 at 00:16:10, Ward Dossche wrote to All ]
Amazing to read the restricted FTSC-area after Michiel's resignation
... no leader at the helm anymore and anmbitions run high to replace
him ... but the main question remains unanswered ... is there still a
future for an FTSC ?
Does the documentation accurately reflect the current state of Fidonet?
Which ones do you mean?Does the documentation accurately reflect the current state ofSome of it doesn't.
Fidonet?
Regards,Bye/2 Torsten
Martin
And half of the FTSC is dormant anyway ...
04.11.2018 11:48, Martin Foster schrieb an Scott Little:
Does the documentation accurately reflect the current state of
Fidonet?
Some of it doesn't.Which ones do you mean?
Here's a small snippet from that document which certainly does not accurately reflect the current state of FidoNet .....
---------- 8< ----------
A. Introduction
FidoNet has grown beyond most peoples' fantasies, and new
FidoNet implementations are appearing regularly.
---------- 8< ----------
Here's a small snippet from that document which certainly does not
accurately reflect the current state of FidoNet .....
---------- 8< ----------
A. Introduction
FidoNet has grown beyond most peoples' fantasies, and new
FidoNet implementations are appearing regularly.
---------- 8< ----------
Ouch!
IIRC there were other issues with FTS1 (can't remember, it was a while ago) but it never got updated because it's copyrighted so we would have to rewrite it from scratch.
Does the documentation accurately reflect the current state of
Fidonet?
Some of it doesn't.
Which ones do you mean?
Let's start with fts-0001.016
Here's a small snippet from that document which certainly does not accurately reflect the current state of FidoNet .....
---------- 8< ----------
A. Introduction
FidoNet has grown beyond most peoples' fantasies, and new
FidoNet implementations are appearing regularly.
---------- 8< ----------
IIRC there were other issues with FTS1 (can't remember, it was a while ago) but it never got updated because it's copyrighted so we would
have to rewrite it from scratch.
IIRC there were other issues with FTS1 (can't remember, it was a while
ago) but it never got updated because it's copyrighted so we would have
to rewrite it from scratch.
Fidonet is dwindling steadily, and Fidonet implementations are mainly 20 years old. New developments are hindered, as many users out of
nostalgia adhere to software developed in de previous century.
I'll check this.Which ones do you mean?Let's start with fts-0001.016
Regards,Bye/2 Torsten
Martin
[ On 2018-11-05 at 08:41:00, Martin Foster wrote to Torsten Bamberg ]
Here's a small snippet from that document which certainly does not accurately reflect the current state of FidoNet .....
---------- 8< ----------
A. Introduction
FidoNet has grown beyond most peoples' fantasies, and new
FidoNet implementations are appearing regularly.
---------- 8< ----------
Ouch!
IIRC there were other issues with FTS1 (can't remember, it was a while ago)
but
it never got updated because it's copyrighted so we would have to rewrite it from scratch.
I'm glad the FTSC archive is online, but it seems anything "new" or
any corrections to any existing documents are very difficult to get published.
Good ${greeting_time}, Rob!
05 Nov 2018 19:22:32, you wrote to Scott Little:
I'm glad the FTSC archive is online, but it seems anything "new" or
any corrections to any existing documents are very difficult to get published.
That's quite simple: once it is approved by FTSC, it is published.
For the record ... anything that anyone writes, by the virtue of
writing it, has a copyright attached to it. Even this message.
Randy Bush has threatened to sue me over this so I told him "I'll see
you in court then" which was the last I heard from him when he left by stating that Fidonet was nothing else but a cat's litterbox smelling
like cat-urine. (in those words)
I have my own FidoNet packet reference published here: http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets
I'm glad the FTSC archive is online, but it seems anything "new" or
any corrections to any existing documents are very difficult to get published.
Randy Bush has threatened to sue me over this so I told him "I'llAre you saying we should ignore the explicit "All rights reserved
see you in court then" which was the last I heard from him when he
left by stating that Fidonet was nothing else but a cat's litterbox
smelling like cat-urine. (in those words)
[etc. etc. etc.]" notice?
As long as the lights are kept on maybe someone someday will one day
take on the boring jobs nobody wanted to do before.
What I observed was not simple. The message had to split into
multiple fragments suitable for reading on 8-bit computers or some
such stupidity which disuades contributions from modern
technologists.
[ On 2018-11-05 at 19:22:32, Rob Swindell wrote to Scott Little ]
I have my own FidoNet packet reference published here: http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets
I'm glad the FTSC archive is online, but it seems anything "new" or
any corrections to any existing documents are very difficult to get published.
As long as it's correct ;) it really shouldn't be that hard..
Hi Rob!
Nov 05 22:26 2018, Rob Swindell wrote to Alexey Vissarionov:
What I observed was not simple. The message had to split into
multiple fragments suitable for reading on 8-bit computers or some
such stupidity which disuades contributions from modern
technologists.
The guideline for writing FSPs is stated in FTA-1002 (http://ftsc.org/docs/fta-1002.003). There is no requirement to split up documents into small junks or other such stupidity. It's the opposite:
It would help to read the documents or to ask the FTSC in this echo. ;)
IIRC there were other issues with FTS1 (can't remember, it was a while
ago) but it never got updated because it's copyrighted so we would have
to rewrite it from scratch.
There we have the copyright ghost again ...
Are you saying we should ignore the explicit "All rights reserved [etc. etc. etc.]" notice?
Anyway the point here being (and confirmed by other replies) that there's still stuff to do so we can't say the FTSC is "done".
The above clause surely makes it possible to update even Randy's
outdated documents to present standard.
Now I'm wondering what exactly it is which needs to be changed updated or upgraded in FTS1 since we're getting all worked-up over it ?
What I observed was not simple. The message had to split into
multiple fragments suitable for reading on 8-bit computers or some
such stupidity which disuades contributions from modern
technologists.
The guideline for writing FSPs is stated in FTA-1002 (http://ftsc.org/docs/fta-1002.003). There is no requirement to split
up documents into small junks or other such stupidity. It's the
opposite:
Secondly, even according to FTA-1007:
1. Some works (for example works of the U.S. Government) are not
subject to copyright. However, to the extent that the submission
is or may be subject to copyright, the contributor, the
organization he represents (if any) and the owners of any
proprietary rights in the contribution, grant an unlimited
perpetual, non-exclusive, royalty-free, world-wide right and
license to the FTSC under any copyrights in the contribution.
This license includes the right to copy, publish and distribute
the contribution in any way, and to prepare derivative works that
are based on or incorporate all or part of the contribution, the
license to such derivative works to be of the same scope as the
license of the original contribution.
The above clause surely makes it possible to update even Randy's outdated documents to present standard.
The above clause surely makes it possible to update even Randy'sthe above was written by the 2nd incarnation of the FTSC as an effort
outdated documents to present standard.
to clarify things and avoid problems like we have with FTS-1... we
cannot update or alter FTS-1 without the author's express permission
and he has specifically and *emphatically* not given that
permission...
apparently the document name falls under his copyright...
so a new document has to be written with a different title
The above clause surely makes it possible to update even Randy's outdated documents to present standard.
the above was written by the 2nd incarnation of the FTSC as an effort to clarify things and avoid problems like we have with FTS-1... we cannot update or alter FTS-1 without the author's express permission and he has specifically and *emphatically* not given that permission...
The above clause surely makes it possible to update even Randy's
outdated documents to present standard.
the above was written by the 2nd incarnation of the FTSC as an effort
to clarify things and avoid problems like we have with FTS-1... we
cannot update or alter FTS-1 without the author's express permission
You possibly can't (you live in US and US legislation applies to
you), but others can (personally I can even use portions of old text without breaking Russian laws).
he has specifically and *emphatically* not given that permission...Did he give a reason?
The above clause surely makes it possible to update even Randy's
outdated documents to present standard.
the above was written by the 2nd incarnation of the FTSC as an
effort to clarify things and avoid problems like we have with
FTS-1... we cannot update or alter FTS-1 without the author's
express permission
You possibly can't (you live in US and US legislation applies toWe could simply write new FTS docs for the different sections of
you), but others can (personally I can even use portions of old
text without breaking Russian laws).
FTS-1 and tag FTS-1 "obsoleted by FTS-xxxx, FTS-yyyy ...".
Good ${greeting_time}, Rob!
07 Nov 2018 11:29:36, you wrote to mark lewis:
he has specifically and *emphatically* not given that permission...Did he give a reason?
Do you really care of that?
I've just been in touch with Randy Bush like 10 minutes ago.
First of all: US copyright law does *not* apply outside of the USA.
You're right, it doesn't, however, you've never heard of the Berne Convention
then (of which all countries represented in this echo are members of)?
So, yes, if Mr. Jennings wanted to push the issue, he could enforce both his copyright and trademark.
But to avoid all of that, one could put what they publish under one of the many Creative Commons licenses.
That's not how it works.
First of all: US copyright law does *not* apply outside of the USA.You're right, it doesn't, however, you've never heard of the Berne Convention then (of which all countries represented in this echo are members of)?
The above clause surely makes it possible to update even Randy's
outdated documents to present standard.
the above was written by the 2nd incarnation of the FTSC as an effort
to clarify things and avoid problems like we have with FTS-1... we
cannot update or alter FTS-1 without the author's express permission
and he has specifically and *emphatically* not given that
permission...
Did he give a reason?
If necessary, I can serve as a principal author for the new FTS-0001 :-)
First of all: US copyright law does *not* apply outside of the USA.
You're right, it doesn't, however, you've never heard of the Berne Convention then (of which all countries represented in this echo are members of)?
"Since almost all nations are members of the World Trade Organization,
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights requires non-members to accept almost all of the conditions of the Berne Convention."
So pretty much, yes, there's common copyright law that applies in each signatory state, as well as further refinements in each state.
So, yes, if Mr. Jennings wanted to push the issue, he could enforce both his copyright and trademark.
But to avoid all of that, one could put what they publish under one of
the many Creative Commons licenses.
That's not how it works.
So enlighten us.
If necessary, I can serve as a principal author for the new FTS-0001
:-)
As long as you don't continue to make unsubstantiated swipes against "ancient software", like you and some other developers have in the
past and still continue to do so against your ZC2.
Cut-and-pasting from Wikipedia does not equal knowledge.
because of people like you and Bjorn constantly bloviating on the rare chance that someone actually gives a shit about what you two think.
Nope. For the simple fact that a copyright infringement in one country
may very well be OK in another country. The plaintiff has no leg to
stand on.
because of people like you and Bjorn constantly bloviating on the rare
chance that someone actually gives a shit about what you two think.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the attitude that has
crippled the FTSC work for many years now.
chance that someone actually gives a shit about what you two think.
you don't accept any blame? you have certainly been a participant for
many years now...
In the FTS-1 case it's obvious, even by the "author's" own admission
-- in the two last sections (K and L) -- that almost nothing in the document is Randy's own work, it's just a collection of other people's work. No originality what so ever...
chance that someone actually gives a shit about what you two think.
you don't accept any blame? you have certainly been a participant for
many years now...
Have you seen me accusing someone with the above "don't give a shit
about what you think"?
i see that you also cut out your quoted response...
i see that you also cut out your quoted response...
I've always tried to trim the quoted text down to a bare minimum.
You may not be aware of it, but most people find it hard to read ugly quoted text with just one single line added to it.
This is why we have comment linking in 21st century FTN software, for those that are interested enough to actually follow the discussion backwards.
If necessary, I can serve as a principal author for the new FTS-0001
:-)
As long as you don't continue to make unsubstantiated swipes against "ancient software", like you and some other developers have in the past and still continue to do so against your ZC2.
As long as you don't continue to make unsubstantiated swipes against "ancient software", like you and some other developers have in the pas and still continue to do so against your ZC2.
And as long as there is no push to demand all sites use a codepage native t his own country which would decimate Z1, 3, 4.
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,044 |
| Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 60:11:59 |
| Calls: | 236,103 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 60,370 |
| D/L today: |
86 files (152M bytes) |
| Messages: | 289,420 |
| Posted today: | 2 |