As I  said I no  longer make public  comments on what  EARN does, unless  I am
being attacked or directly involved. This is the case here, so I am answering.
 
>I hope, everybody is proud and happy  now to have a stable situation and some
>more signed (and still to be signed) paperwork.
 
EARN  is  the  one which  insisted  to  get  something  signed from  the  very
beginning. I  kept refusing, as  it was clear that  their purpose was  to take
LISTSERV out  of my control and  stick a glossy "EARN-developed"  label on it,
but they kept  insisting. I am sure some EARN  official will immediately reply
that this is not true, at least stopped being true when the President changed,
and you are free  to believe who you want. Personally I  would have been happy
not to have to carefully write a dangerous (for me) contract and sign it; I am
not particularly proud of having a piece of paper bearing the signature of our
President, but I am sure glad to have got  out of the situation I was in. I am
glad, among other  things, that my boss will no  longer be privately contacted
by the President of EARN to discuss my case.
 
>What  I have  heard  about Listserv's  future, however,  reminds  me more  on
>commercial non-disclosure contracts to protect trade secrets.
 
There  is no  non-disclosure contract.  If you  want to  write a  LISTSERV for
OS/XYZ based on what  you know the VM version does, you are  free to do so. If
however you  want to give  *my* work  (I mean the  code) away to  someone else
without my permission, you  are not free to do so. I  don't see anything about
non-disclosure or trade secret here. If you give me a copy of a superb picture
you  took for  my  own  use, and  I  publish it  in  a  magazine without  your
permission (maybe even under my name), you will probably be angry at me, which
doesn't mean the picture is a trade secret.
 
>Furthermore I don't understand what an "EARN site" is. What's the definition?
 
A member of the EARN association in one of the EARN countries.
 
>Does this mean a European Internet (or UUCP) node will qualify for the BITNET
>version of Listserv?
 
I don't  ship copies of  the code  to nodes which  are not reachable  via NJE,
because it's too much  work for me (I'd have to UUENCODE  files, etc). I guess
that solves the problem.
 
>Furthermore I  don't understand why  I have to  sign a license  agreement for
>software I already have obtained under valid terms in a legal way.
 
You  don't have.  From what  I  understand, EARN  will offer  you support  for
LISTSERV provided you accept the terms  (still to be defined) of their license
agreement. If you don't  want to accept them, you don't have  to. I can't (and
don't  want anyway)  to cancel  your  license, you  are not  forced to  accept
EARN's, so things can remain as they are today.
 
By the way Thomas, if you have any constructive suggestion about what I should
do,  please do  suggest. But  don't forget  that it's  easy to  judge people's
reactions  to attacks  and pressure  when  *you* are  not the  subject of  the
pressure.
 
  Eric