HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.edu,comp.software.licensing,misc.education
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:09:38 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>In article <bhayden.724607233@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>>Furthermore, if your institution does not have a written policy in
>>>this regard (that you signed!), then any software written by you is
>>>your property and your property alone.  (The author of any work
>>>automatically has copyright ownership in most countries including the
>>>US, unless he/she explicitly renounced such rights.) 
>>
>>I am not sure I agree. Most faculty would be considered employees of 
>>the school. You do not own software (or any other work) created in
>>the course of your employeement, if you are an employee - your 
>>employer does. Where the agreement is necessary is when you are an
>>independant contractor. In that case the work belongs to the creator
>>unless a contract says otherwise. 
>>
>>Some of the inidica of employment that faculty would fail would be:
>>- they get regular paychecks, with all the proper deductions.
>>- the school usually provides a place of work.
>>- the school usually has some control over what they do.

>Where do you get your "facts"..?  You're making them up according
>to what seems reasonable to you!  (Ok, you used the word "would",
>indicating that your writings are conjecture...)

>It simply isn't true... just being employed DOES NOT cause you to
>automatically lose all rights over your work.  Your employer has to
>explicitly enter into an agreement with you in this regard, and you
>have to sign it.  Otherwise what you create is yours, and without a
>document with your signature on it no court of law (in the USA) would
>find for your employer.

>Of course most employers of people who create published work in the
>course of their employment are fully aware of this and have all these
>things as part of the standard paperwork everybody signs when they
>first get hired.  If you yourself are a software engineer, why don't
>you go over to your personell office and ask to see some of the things
>you signed when you started with your organization?

If that is the law - please give the cites. I believe that the C/R
statute, and the seminal case (CCNV) make a strong distinction 
between employees and independant contractors.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.edu,comp.software.licensing,misc.education
From: dal3@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (dale.e.parson)
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:53:45 GMT

In article <=#brqzm@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>
>
>None of this applies, of course, to tangible assets.  Who owns the 
>equipment, software, etc would be governed by the contract between
>the university and the payor.  Being someone who has purchased 
>university research, I can assure you my contracts have specified
>the university controls their side of the deal.  Last thing I'd
>want would be for some professor to get his ass in a snit and
>run off to God knows where with my money and my equipment.
>I normally donate my equipment involved  to the UNIVERSITY after
>the project is finished.  
>
>Reading this thread, two thoughts come to mind.  From the original 
>prof's own words, I conclude he's being a prick over a turf war
>he cannot win and that he'll probably kiss tenure goodbye.  Secondly,
>if this is representative of academic "research" today, something
>is badly wrong.
>

Ah, reality finally makes entry into the reality check. The discussion
before this point has been a little, shall we say, ACADEMIC.
One might argue causes to bite the hand that feeds one, but certainly
not when one is toothless. No wonder this country is awash in lawsuits.
Even the most basic modern interpersonal relationships like employer-
employee don't get the benefit of common sense. Maybe it's a net phenomenon--
go to the net with a question whose answer should be painfully obvious,
and get back nonsense answers.


Dale Parson, Bell Labs, dale@mhcnet.att.com

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
|    "These words are too solid, they don't move fast enough           |
|     to catch the blur in the brain that flies by, and is gone..."    |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Suzanne Vega                                                     |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.edu,comp.software.licensing,misc.education
From: jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz)
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:47:00 GMT

In article <bhayden.724607233@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:
>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>>Furthermore, if your institution does not have a written policy in
>>this regard (that you signed!), then any software written by you is
>>your property and your property alone.  (The author of any work
>>automatically has copyright ownership in most countries including the
>>US, unless he/she explicitly renounced such rights.) 
>
>I am not sure I agree. Most faculty would be considered employees of 
>the school. You do not own software (or any other work) created in
>the course of your employeement, if you are an employee - your 
>employer does. Where the agreement is necessary is when you are an
>independant contractor. In that case the work belongs to the creator
>unless a contract says otherwise. 
>
>Some of the inidica of employment that faculty would fail would be:
>- they get regular paychecks, with all the proper deductions.
>- the school usually provides a place of work.
>- the school usually has some control over what they do.

Where do you get your "facts"..?  You're making them up according
to what seems reasonable to you!  (Ok, you used the word "would",
indicating that your writings are conjecture...)

It simply isn't true... just being employed DOES NOT cause you to
automatically lose all rights over your work.  Your employer has to
explicitly enter into an agreement with you in this regard, and you
have to sign it.  Otherwise what you create is yours, and without a
document with your signature on it no court of law (in the USA) would
find for your employer.

Of course most employers of people who create published work in the
course of their employment are fully aware of this and have all these
things as part of the standard paperwork everybody signs when they
first get hired.  If you yourself are a software engineer, why don't
you go over to your personell office and ask to see some of the things
you signed when you started with your organization?

--
Jurgen Botz                  |   Internet: JBotz@mtholyoke.edu
Academic Systems Consultant  |     Bitnet: JBotz@mhc.bitnet
Mount Holyoke College        |      Voice: (US) 413-538-2375 (daytime)
South Hadley, MA, USA        | Snail Mail: J. Botz, 01075-0629

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.edu,comp.software.licensing,misc.education
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:54:02 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.132319.520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>
>This may be a problem that is inappropriate or offensive to some of you, but
>
>I am also under the impression that if the PI moves from one academic or 
>research institution to another, that the grants typically move as well, even
>though they were made to the University.  I also believe that, if negotiated,
>the resources purchased on that grant move (I cannot believe that NIH or
>NSF want to pay twice for the same glassware, chemicals, software etc. just
>because someone moved).  Again, my chairman and dean are denying that this
>is the case.
>
>Doug Smith
>Assistant Professor of Chemistry
>The University of Toledo
>Toledo, OH  43606-3390
>
>voice    419-537-2116
>fax      419-537-4033
>email    dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu
>
>P.S.  Any one looking for a computational and synthetic organic chemist with
>a decent track record?

	I am also under the same impression that grants actually
belong to the PI.  I believe there is always a problem about who actually
owns what when the PI wants to move.  I've read about some
physics professors who contribute to a loss of prestige to the university
they were attached to because the profs took their grant money and
equipment with them when they left.
	I think the best way of of the dilemma is to try to get the
(oops!) your name on the grant instead of the University's.
I also think it's a matter of courtesy that the dept head asked you
first.  Though, being the dept head, it would be prudent let him use
the stuff freely if the use doesn't conflicts with your own interests.
The individual prof usually ahs to give in.

wing

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy
From: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu (Leo D. Geoffrion)
Subject: Re: Computer Purchase Plans
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:47:21 GMT


Here's a suggestion for dealing with the opposite end of the process
-- helping staff pay for their computers.

Back in the mid-80's our senior administration set up a revolving
charge program whereby employees can purchase a computer through the
College and obtain a 0% interest loan that is repaid via payroll
deduction.  As money flows back into the loan program, it can be
recycled to write more loans.

It's really quite cheap the to College... It loses only the interest
it would have earned on that piece of the endowment.  At the same
time, it produces tremendous productivity by getting computers into
many people's hands -- especially the young faculty/staff who are just
starting out in their careers and may not have the ready cash for a
computer purchase.

-- 
Leo Geoffrion, Skidmore College Computer Services, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
EMAIL: ldg@scott.skidmore.edu   VOICE: (518) 584-5000 Ext. 2919

Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.edu,comp.software.licensing,misc.education
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:35:00 GMT

dal3@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (dale.e.parson) writes:

>In article <=#brqzm@dixie.com> jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>
>>
>>None of this applies, of course, to tangible assets.  Who owns the 
>>equipment, software, etc would be governed by the contract between
>>the university and the payor.  Being someone who has purchased 
>>university research, I can assure you my contracts have specified
>>the university controls their side of the deal.  

       This varies with the funding agency.  Some contract research
specifies that the equipment purchased becomes the property of the
contracting agency, which can redeploy it as desired.  In the DoD
contracting world, when you finish a contract, the contracting agency
may order you to pack up the equipment and ship it someplace, maybe
even to a competitor.  Grants are a different matter, and I'm not 
famillar with current grant terms.

       In the contract situation, if the people doing the work have a
strong relationship with the contracting agency, it may well be possible
to move to another organization and have the equipment follow them.
This is unusual, but it happens.  Typically it happens when the researcher
involved is an acknowleged leader in the field.  It's not usually a 
hostile situation that brings this on; it's typically something like
"I could get better work done if I was at place X, where related
work is already being done/additional facilities are available/etc".
Sometimes the contracting agency initiates the move, as part of an
effort to concentrate activity in a field at a "center of excellence".
It's not common in the contracts world just because someone is having
political problems.

					John Nagle
        
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.edu,comp.software.licensing,misc.education
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 09:51:46 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>It simply isn't true... just being employed DOES NOT cause you to
>automatically lose all rights over your work.  Your employer has to
>explicitly enter into an agreement with you in this regard, and you
>have to sign it.  Otherwise what you create is yours, and without a
>document with your signature on it no court of law (in the USA) would
>find for your employer.

Typical of generalizations, your assertions are wrong in at least 
the state of Georgia.  Georgia passed a law a few years ago that
stacks the deck strongly in favor of the employer regarding 
intellectual property.  How this applies to academics is unknown,
as there have been no test cases.

None of this applies, of course, to tangible assets.  Who owns the 
equipment, software, etc would be governed by the contract between
the university and the payor.  Being someone who has purchased 
university research, I can assure you my contracts have specified
the university controls their side of the deal.  Last thing I'd
want would be for some professor to get his ass in a snit and
run off to God knows where with my money and my equipment.
I normally donate my equipment involved  to the UNIVERSITY after
the project is finished.  

Reading this thread, two thoughts come to mind.  From the original 
prof's own words, I conclude he's being a prick over a turf war
he cannot win and that he'll probably kiss tenure goodbye.  Secondly,
if this is representative of academic "research" today, something
is badly wrong.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Xref: sparky comp.admin.policy:1652 comp.edu:2217 comp.software.licensing:113 misc.education:5370
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Newsgroups: comp.admin.policy,comp.edu,comp.software.licensing,misc.education
Subject: Re: reality check - with apologies
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:47:13 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.132319.520@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsmith@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:

>Furthermore, if your institution does not have a written policy in
>this regard (that you signed!), then any software written by you is
>your property and your property alone.  (The author of any work
>automatically has copyright ownership in most countries including the
>US, unless he/she explicitly renounced such rights.)  If your work
>involves porting someone elses software, then it is a derivative work,
>and as such that portion that makes the work derivative is yours, i.e.
>you don't own the original software, but have full and sole ownership
>of the modifications that were necessary to port the software.  It is
>important to note here that many academic institutions require their
>faculty, staff, and students to sign a document that gives the
>institution copyright ownership of any work that is produced using the
>institution's resources, but if you did not sign any such document
>your work is yours.

I am not sure I agree. Most faculty would be considered employees of 
the school. You do not own software (or any other work) created in
the course of your employeement, if you are an employee - your 
employer does. Where the agreement is necessary is when you are an
independant contractor. In that case the work belongs to the creator
unless a contract says otherwise. 

Some of the inidica of employment that faculty would fail would be:
- they get regular paychecks, with all the proper deductions.
- the school usually provides a place of work.
- the school usually has some control over what they do.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
From: jyang@cco.caltech.edu (Chih Meng Yang)
Newsgroups: comp.archives
Subject: [comp.os.os2.apps] GhostScript
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.apps
Date: 16 Dec 1992 09:27:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
X-Original-Date: 10 Dec 1992 20:22:23 GMT

Archive-name: auto/comp.os.os2.apps/GhostScript

I have uploaded to hobbes (ftp-os2.nmsu.edu) my lastest port of
GhostScript (PostScript interpreter/previewer).  The name of the archive
is gspm24.zoo.  Here is a brief description:

Program Description:

  This is an OS/2 2.0 port of the GNU GhostScript 2.5.2 with a Presentation
Manager driver (Version 2.4 by Jim Yang).  You may distribute this archive
only if you do not change the name of the archive: gspm24.

This version:

	1.  Adds a 256 color mode and a 16 gray scale mode, in addition to
	    the 4 gray scale mode of the 1.x PM driver.  You can use
	    the first two modes only if your system uses an OS/2 2.0 display
	    driver running in 256 color mode.  If your system is using an
	    OS/2 1.x display driver or is running in 16 color mode, you can
	    only get 4 gray levels.
	2.  The speed of font rendering of the PM driver has been
	    improved in gspm24.

Make sure you read the readme.1st file in the archive.

Jim Yang
jyang@daedalus.caltech.edu
From: lingnau@math.uni-frankfurt.de (Anselm Lingnau)
Newsgroups: comp.archives
Subject: [comp.text.tex] float.sty 1.1c available
Followup-To: comp.text.tex
Date: 20 Dec 1992 20:57:03 GMT
Organization: University of Frankfurt/Main, Dept. of Mathematics
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: New classes of floats and 'PUT THE FLOAT HERE FGS' for LaTeX
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
X-Original-Date: 19 Dec 92 18:01:21 GMT

Archive-name: auto/comp.text.tex/float-sty-1-1c-available

Christmas is coming up, and a new version of my float style package has been
made available for anonymous FTP:

`float.sty' lets you define new classes of floats in a manner analogous to
\newtheorem{...}. It also adds the notion of a `float style' governing the
appearance of floating objects much like the `page style' governs the 
appearance of pages in a document.

The main difference between Version 1.1c and previous versions is that Version
1.1c incorporates the functionality of David Carlisle's `here.sty'. Although
LaTeX provides a float placement specifier [h], commonly called `here', this
specifier only suggests to LaTeX `put the float here if you like'. here.sty 
and float.sty support another specifier, [H], meaning `PUT IT HERE'. With
float.sty, the [H] specifier is available for LaTeX's standard floats as
well as newly-defined classes of floats.

float.sty 1.1c replaces the former multi-file distribution of `float'. The
style contains its own documentation, but Frank Mittelbach et al.'s `doc'
package (available from all good servers) is required to take advantage of
this. With the `docstrip' package, float.sty can be converted to a nearly
comment-less, fast-loading file.

float.sty 1.1c is available as ftp.math.uni-frankfurt.de:pub/tex/float.sty
(141.2.90.2 for those without a name service). I've been trying to upload it
to Stuttgart, but I can't get any packets through :-( Maybe on Monday.

Acknowledgements: David Carlisle proof-read and tested this version of
float.sty. But for him you'd all be in for some nasty surprises :-) Thanks
also to FM and all of those who collaborated on the `doc' package.

Merry Christmas to all of you,

Anselm
-- 
Anselm Lingnau .................................. lingnau@math.uni-frankfurt.de
With diligence, it is possible to make anything run slowly.	   --- Tom Duff
From: Michael Travers <mt@media.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.archives
Subject: [cu.cs.macl.info] new release of qt-objects QuickTime interface
Followup-To: cu.cs.macl.info
Date: 20 Dec 1992 20:58:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
X-Original-Newsgroups: cu.cs.macl.info
X-Original-Date: 09 Dec 92 19:23:56 -0500

Archive-name: auto/cu.cs.macl.info/new-release-of-qt-objects-QuickTime-interface


QT-OBJECTS provides a simple CLOS-based interface between MCL 2.0 and
QuickTime.  This new release supports movie controllers,
cut/copy/paste of movie objects, many more functions, and many small
fixes and improvements.  It's also better organized and commented.  

qt-objects.lisp can be obtained via anonymous FTP from
cambridge.apple.com as:

   /pub/MCL2/contrib/qt-objects.lisp.hqx

This new release may not be compatible with earlier versions,
including the one on the MCL 2.0 CD-ROM.  You need to have the
QuickTime extension installed (version 1.5 is recommended), and at
least one movie to play.

QT-OBJECTS is the work of many people at the Media Lab and Institute
for the Learning Sciences:

Marc Davis (mdavis@media.mit.edu)
Mike Travers (mt@media.mit.edu)
Brian Williams (bwill@athena.mit.edu)
Kemi Jona (jona@ils.nwu.edu)
Mike Korcuska (korcuska@ils.nwu.edu)
From: walrus@wam.umd.edu (Udo K Schuermann)
Newsgroups: comp.archives
Subject: [comp.sys.amiga.announce] Aquarium replacement now available:  KingFisher
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Date: 16 Dec 1992 09:27:57 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
Reply-To: walrus@wam.umd.edu (Udo K Schuermann)
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.announce
X-Original-Date: 3 Dec 92 00:36:53 GMT

Archive-name: auto/comp.sys.amiga.announce/Aquarium-replacement-now-available-KingFisher


  KingFisher is a freely distributable replacement for Aquarium, providing
  a mechanism to search for software in Fred Fish's Library of Freely
  Distributable Software.  KingFisher has been designed for users of both
  floppy-only and harddisks systems operating under either Kickstart 1.3
  or Kickstart 2.0.

  KingFisher offers the following features:

  - Maintains a split database across multiple disk volumes,
  - Searches this database more than 3 times faster than Aquarium,
  - Adds new fish directly from Contents files or Usenet postings,
    even from multiple concatenated postings or email contents files,
  - Fish can be deleted from the end of the database to undo errors,
  - Database is a line-oriented text file accessed through index
    which can be modified by hand and then reindexed,
  - Flexible print and export functions, including search-filtered
    output,
  - Select from multiple different search strings,
  - Limit searches to a portion of the database,
  - Follow version links to older or newer versions of software,
  - Maintain multiple different "bookmarks" into the database and
    switch between them with a single mouse click,
  - Supports proportional and scalable fonts for description text,
  - String gadgets are optionally kept active for keyboard comfort,
  - Full configuration saved between executions,
  - Iconifies to save Chip RAM (46K).

KingFisher comes supplied with a complete AmigaLibDisk database (Fish
Disks 1-770) and is available on the following public ftp sites as
'KingFisher.lha' (477691 bytes):

wuarchive.wustl.edu	128.252.135.4	   /systems/amiga/incoming/fish
grind.isca.uiowa.edu	128.255.19.233	   /amiga/Read.These         (*)
ux1.cso.uiuc.edu	128.174.5.59	   /amiga/Aquarium           (*)

(*) Not certain at this time if these are where KingFisher will show up.


 ._.  Udo Schuermann        "New way?  What's this I hear about a new way?"
 ( )  walrus@wam.umd.edu                      -- Alex, "A Clockwork Orange"

--
Read all administrative posts before putting your post up.  Mailing
list: announce-request@cs.ucdavis.edu.  Comments to zerkle@cs.ucdavis.edu.
MAIL ALL COMP.SYS.AMIGA.ANNOUNCE ANNOUNCEMENTS TO announce@cs.ucdavis.edu.