Re: Videophone software fraud?

Stan Borinski (
Tue, 25 Apr 1995 17:28:11 -0400 (EDT)

> I read your readme file after I had been using CUSeeMe for several weeks,
> and being a member of this list, I know how much work the programmers at
> Cornell and elsewhere had worked to get CUSeeMe where it is, codewise. And
> while your interface had changed and seemed more appealing in VideoPhone,
> the fact remains, you didn't give sufficient credit to Cornell and mention
> CUSeeMe.
> While I have little doubt that you spent a considerable amount of time
> working on this project, the only mention of CUSeeMe was that VideoPhone

It takes a lot of effort to colorize menus and make a new icon. Not!

> supports the CUSeeMe reflectors. I'm sorry, I may only be a college
> student, but I've been programming for eleven years and I know a bit about
> ethics. I know that if someone writes a tremendous amount of code, and
> someone else comes along and polishes that code up a little and slaps his
> name on it without properly acknowledging the originator, it's plagiarism.
> Plain and simple.

It's worse than you think Roger. It would be one thing if he actually had
polished up the code. In fact, he polished up the executable with ResEdit.
I'm sorry to waste another message, but this kind of behavior gets my goat.
I suggest we no longer mention VideoPhone on this list. It's not worthy of
our time.

So that we get some benefit from this ordeal, could I ask that someone from
Cornell post 0.80b2 to info-mac? (I seem to remember an author-only posting
policy.) It's sad that the "latest" version of VideoPhone was (is!) there,
but only the ancient 0.70b1 version of CU-SeeMe is there:
-r 221288 Apr 20 1995 comm/video-phone-demo.hqx
-r 154327 Jul 15 1994 comm/tcp/cu-see-me-070b1.hqx


Stan Borinski +1-703-742-4796
Software Engineer Network Solutions Herndon, VA
Come visit our CU-SeeMe Reflector: