Mentec US is gone! - DEC

This is a discussion on Mentec US is gone! - DEC ; "John Santos" wrote in message news:qp1ih.2063$Iy5.1786@trnddc01... > > But Mike's point is non-transferable *licenses* are illegal in Germany > and possibly some Scandanavian countries. He's not talking about the > difference between buying software and buying a license to run ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 187

Thread: Mentec US is gone!

  1. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    "John Santos" wrote in message
    news:qp1ih.2063$Iy5.1786@trnddc01...
    >
    > But Mike's point is non-transferable *licenses* are illegal in Germany
    > and possibly some Scandanavian countries. He's not talking about the
    > difference between buying software and buying a license to run the
    > software. He's talking about 3rd parties buying and selling licenses.
    > This is not the same thing as buying one license and selling it many
    > times. Buy it once, sell it once. New owner can now sell it to a 3rd
    > owner, and so on for ever, but at any one time, there exists only one
    > legitimate owner of that particular license.
    >
    > Microsoft has *never* sold Windows to anyone... Read the box; what you
    > are buying is a *license* to use Windows. Microsoft might claim it
    > is non-transferable (not sure anymore), but, according to Mike, they
    > lost in German court when they sued someone for transfering the license
    > with their permission.
    >

    Americans (especially the ones that have never lived anywhere except in the
    USA) seem to think that the laws in the USA apply to all countries in the
    world. It is truly sad.



  2. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) wrote:
    >In article ,
    > wrote:
    >>In article ,
    >> legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
    >>>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
    >>>
    >>>jmfbahciv@aol.com spake the secret code
    >>> thusly:
    >>>
    >>>>>>No, you don't. You expect everybody else to use his business
    >>>>>>model which happens to create useless, short-term ****.
    >>>>>

    >
    >[snip]
    >
    >>>Not if you talk to the average computer user instead of the crufty old
    >>>curmudgeons who pine for the days of PDP-11s.

    >>
    >>Who is pining for -11s? They're still out there working and being
    >>supported.
    >>
    >>/BAH
    >>

    >
    >I'm pining for PDP11's... With real toggle switches.


    Somehow I don't think the kids who want stuff free have
    met this gear.

    >
    >There are not too many left in my area now. (Probably none...)
    >
    >Vaxes are also very rare and you couldn't spit in the 1990 timeframe
    >without hitting one or the other in Monmouth County, NJ.
    >
    >Now you have old Farts like me wishing there was a way for me to play
    >with them legally... with the real OS on 'em.


    I understand. I wish there were a way, too. If I, as the den
    mother, had to choose between letting old Farts play with their
    home systems or allowing the -11 biz to stay viable, I have
    absolutely no problem choosing the viable option.
    >
    >I've dumped all my non-VAX stuff staying with Sun's and Solaris and
    >SunOS for Unix and PC emulation with SimH for the rest.
    >
    >I really would've fought hard to keep the 11 hardware I had if there was
    >the ability to run them legally. (Not for profit -- just for the fun of
    >seeing the different light pattern on RT11, RSX11 and RSTS/E again...)


    Why are stuck on those OSes? Aren't there others that will run
    on the old gear and flash their bits at you?

    /BAH

  3. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <45892e4d$1_4@news.bluewin.ch>,
    "Giorgio Ungarelli" wrote:
    >"John Santos" wrote in message
    >news:qp1ih.2063$Iy5.1786@trnddc01...
    >>
    >> But Mike's point is non-transferable *licenses* are illegal in Germany
    >> and possibly some Scandanavian countries. He's not talking about the
    >> difference between buying software and buying a license to run the
    >> software. He's talking about 3rd parties buying and selling licenses.
    >> This is not the same thing as buying one license and selling it many
    >> times. Buy it once, sell it once. New owner can now sell it to a 3rd
    >> owner, and so on for ever, but at any one time, there exists only one
    >> legitimate owner of that particular license.
    >>
    >> Microsoft has *never* sold Windows to anyone... Read the box; what you
    >> are buying is a *license* to use Windows. Microsoft might claim it
    >> is non-transferable (not sure anymore), but, according to Mike, they
    >> lost in German court when they sued someone for transfering the license
    >> with their permission.
    >>

    >Americans (especially the ones that have never lived anywhere except in the
    >USA) seem to think that the laws in the USA apply to all countries in the
    >world. It is truly sad.


    Not all of us are ignorant about that. Personally, I have an
    opinion about transferring _systems_ (rather than copying software);
    I also wish there were purple unicorns in my back yard.

    When you buy a system from another company, how do you get
    access to the latest fixes for hardware and software?

    /BAH


  4. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article

    ,
    rdeininger@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) wrote:
    >In article , Don North
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>BTW maintaining these licenses costs HP/COMPAQ/DEC *nothing* because the
    >>VMS hobbyist program is maintained by a third party (Montagar Software).

    >
    >What makes you suppose this doesn't cost HP anything?


    I think because they have no idea of the work invovled babysitting
    bit arrangements.

    /BAH

  5. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    On Wed, 20 Dec 06 12:22:09 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

    >In article ,
    > Mike Ross wrote:
    >>On Tue, 19 Dec 06 12:28:50 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:




    >>Barb, I think what especially rankles is that people who *only* want
    >>to run *vintage* (i.e. pre-Mentec) software on vintage hardware which
    >>they've rescued (where they already own the hardware, media, and docs)
    >>are *still* expected to pay enormous license fees to Mentec for the
    >>privilege.

    >
    >AFAICT, these people want Mentec to provide all materials and bits.
    >That is not free to Mentec. I don't see how any of DEC's old
    >packaging could have survived.


    That's *not* what I'm saying. I don't expect *anything* from Mentec.
    Let's say I aquire an obsolete 11/45 with a couple of RM03s, a bunch
    of RM03 packs, some containing an *old* RSTS, and a shelf full of
    manuals. All bought from DEC 25 years ago. I clean it up and get it
    going and boot it. I don't want or need *anything* from Mentec - I
    just want to play with what I already have.

    >AFAIK, the "old" docs are all available online. The manuals I have
    >are there. If these people are really looking for the old stuff,
    >I don't see how they expect Mentec to resurrect what was destroyed
    >15+ years ago.


    No, see above - I got a bunch of dusty old manuals with the 11/45 - I
    don't expect Mentec to do *anything* for me.

    >Morals don't count in business. Grow up. Property is bought
    >and sold everyday. If an exception is made to the -11 stuff,
    >perhsps this can be extended to the house or car you think you own.


    Well the situation with software licenses is like, a developer builds
    a house. You buy it. 20 years later you decide to give it to your
    daughter - but the developer comes along and says 'hold on there, you
    can't give it to her - she has to buy it from me again'. It is odd how
    some people are happy to tolerate business practices with software
    that we never would with cars or houses.

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

  6. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    wrote:
    >>I have boxes of license certificates sitting here... but they all are
    >>assigning the licenses to someone else, not to me. And they are not
    >>transferrable, so they do not legally authorize me to use the software.

    >
    >What is the part number of...say...the OS license in your box?


    Well, the one on the top of the box is an Ultrix license, QL-VV1AC-BC.
    There are probably fifty or so other different OS licenses in there. Some
    are transferrable PAKs but most are not.
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

  7. Booting a new OS on DEC equipment [was Re: Mentec US is gone!]

    NB: I'm not addressing any of the IP questions, just the mechanical one.

    jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

    > I haven't kept up with licensing...this one has to allow you to boot the old
    > system and run it (you have to do this to install the new set of OS bits).


    > Or does the system software disk come as a rom and you don't copy it to your
    > local structures?


    Hi, Barb,

    On KL-10 systems, at least, three floppies (or three DECtapes, for older boxes)
    were shipped, containing RSX-20F. The boot ROM in the 11/40 could boot the
    front end from those floppies or DECtapes, and the front end could set up the
    microcode for the back end and load BOOT into back-end memory, to load the
    appropriate OS from mag tape.

    (On the KS-10, the 8080 front-end processor apparently can do the microcode
    loading and start BOOT directly from mag tape.)

    There doesn't have to be any runnable system on the box to install a new OS (or
    I'd be SOL after head crashes).

    Given the on-going development of the 11 family after the 11/40, I'd expect the
    same thing, mutatis mutandis ceterisque paribus, to be true for installing a
    new OS on an 11.

    On an 8 it's even simpler: A dozen instructions or so from the toggles, and
    you can boot whatever medium you like. I think the 18-bit family were more
    like the 8 than like the 11, but I could be wrong.

    --
    Rich Alderson | /"\ ASCII ribbon |
    news@alderson.users.panix.com | \ / campaign against |
    "You get what anybody gets. You get a lifetime." | x HTML mail and |
    --Death, of the Endless | / \ postings |

  8. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <4lcio257mdenbu74nmp9uj7v2duns7tn25@4ax.com>,
    Mike Ross writes:
    >
    > Well the situation with software licenses is like, a developer builds
    > a house. You buy it. 20 years later you decide to give it to your
    > daughter - but the developer comes along and says 'hold on there, you
    > can't give it to her - she has to buy it from me again'. It is odd how
    > some people are happy to tolerate business practices with software
    > that we never would with cars or houses.



    No, you buy the house, you don't "buy" the software. If you want a
    closer example using real estate then consider this.

    You lease a house. The lease grants rights to live in the house but
    only to the leasor, you. You decide to sub-let it to your daughter
    and the leasor comes forward to tell you you can't do that. And, yes,
    it is perfectly legal and done all the time.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  9. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    John Santos writes:
    >
    > Bill, are you being deliberately obtuse? Mike is *not* talking about buying
    > a copy of RSTS/E of some one who bought 25 years ago, and running it on his
    > system while the original licensee continues to run it on the original system.
    >
    > He is talking about buying an existing, licensed system from the original
    > licensee, and using the original licensed software on the original hardware,
    > which now belongs to him. This is in effect a license transfer and the
    > original owner no longer has the right to run the software. It is not in
    > any way analogous to xeroxing a book and selling copies. There is no
    > coping involved.


    I know what he wants to do. It doesn't change the fact that he is not
    the licensee. I keep hearing that PDP licenses "automagically" transfer.
    None that I have seen do that. The person who provided the machine with
    the software intact very likely violated his license in doing it.

    >
    >
    > The original DEC (and I think HP and Mentec licenses) are non-transferable,
    > meaning you can't do this without permission from DEC/Compaq/HP/Mentec as the
    > case may be.


    Thank you. You have confirmed what I said above.

    > I think in practice, DEC used allow customers to transfer
    > licenses for a relatively small fee, $300 sticks in my mind, but I don't
    > recall if this applied to VMS, RSTS/E, layered products individually or
    > the whole bundle, and I have no idea what HP or Mentec's current policy
    > on license transfers is.


    I am sure that Mentec will transfer licenses. That's a commercial
    transaction and not a hobbyist thing. I am also fairly certain that
    the people here wanting to run the software are not going to be
    willing to pay several hundred dollars for the priviledge. And, in
    at least one case (and I am sure in the majority of other cases as
    well) there is no pre-existing license as it has either been lost
    or the box was acquired by dumpster diving and not by ecplicit
    transfer from the original owner.

    >
    > But Mike's point is non-transferable *licenses* are illegal in Germany
    > and possibly some Scandanavian countries.


    I am not sure that is what he is talking about. The MS case he cited
    refers to selling OEM copies of the software (physical copies) with the
    OEM license contained within. In that case, the party bought the
    software and the EU said he has the right to resell those individual
    copies. I am not sure that "non-transferable *licenses*" would be
    illegal in the EU but then, that is a contract matter. In any event,
    I am rather certain that the PDP licenses like the VMS licenses are
    in fact transferable. For a fee!! And, it wold likely require that
    you had the original and the original licensee would very likely have
    to sign the paperwork for the transfer as well. I am sure in most cases
    the original license has been lost and also the original owner is not
    even known. Add tot hat the fact that thre are a lot of machines out
    there that were never licensed to run any of these OSes as they ran
    Ultrix, BSD or UCSD-Pascal.

    > He's not talking about the
    > difference between buying software and buying a license to run the
    > software. He's talking about 3rd parties buying and selling licenses.
    > This is not the same thing as buying one license and selling it many
    > times. Buy it once, sell it once. New owner can now sell it to a 3rd
    > owner, and so on for ever, but at any one time, there exists only one
    > legitimate owner of that particular license.


    But no one has ever asked about transfers here. All they do is say I
    got this machine and I should be allowed to use it.

    >
    > Microsoft has *never* sold Windows to anyone... Read the box; what you
    > are buying is a *license* to use Windows. Microsoft might claim it
    > is non-transferable (not sure anymore), but, according to Mike, they
    > lost in German court when they sued someone for transfering the license
    > with their permission.


    Like most things legal, I think there is more to it than a simple
    argument over transfering licenses. We have license transfers up
    the whazoo over here but I know that technically, what he was doing
    is illegal over here and there have been cases of computer fleamarkets
    being succesfully raided over these ilicit OEM copies of software.
    In any event, I am sure if the original licensee contacted Mentec and
    said, "I want to ttransfer this license", Mentec would be glad to quote
    a price and print an invoice. Of course, I am also relatively sure the
    cost would be more than the denizens here would be willing to pay and
    then we could start this argument all over again. :-)

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  10. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <45892e4d$1_4@news.bluewin.ch>,
    "Giorgio Ungarelli" writes:
    > "John Santos" wrote in message
    > news:qp1ih.2063$Iy5.1786@trnddc01...
    >>
    >> But Mike's point is non-transferable *licenses* are illegal in Germany
    >> and possibly some Scandanavian countries. He's not talking about the
    >> difference between buying software and buying a license to run the
    >> software. He's talking about 3rd parties buying and selling licenses.
    >> This is not the same thing as buying one license and selling it many
    >> times. Buy it once, sell it once. New owner can now sell it to a 3rd
    >> owner, and so on for ever, but at any one time, there exists only one
    >> legitimate owner of that particular license.
    >>
    >> Microsoft has *never* sold Windows to anyone... Read the box; what you
    >> are buying is a *license* to use Windows. Microsoft might claim it
    >> is non-transferable (not sure anymore), but, according to Mike, they
    >> lost in German court when they sued someone for transfering the license
    >> with their permission.
    >>

    > Americans (especially the ones that have never lived anywhere except in the
    > USA) seem to think that the laws in the USA apply to all countries in the
    > world. It is truly sad.


    Yeah, too bad I am not one of them. I have lived in Germany and am very
    familiar with the fact that the legal systems are different. The sad
    thing is that MS apparently doesn't have lawyers who know this!!

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  11. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
    > wrote:
    >>>I have boxes of license certificates sitting here... but they all are
    >>>assigning the licenses to someone else, not to me. And they are not
    >>>transferrable, so they do not legally authorize me to use the software.

    >>
    >>What is the part number of...say...the OS license in your box?

    >
    >Well, the one on the top of the box is an Ultrix license, QL-VV1AC-BC.


    I don't know how to ask the next question so you understand what I'm
    trying to find out; so bear with me :-). In addition, I wasn't familiar
    with the Ultrix biz so I can't "decode" the part number. All those
    letters plus their position mean something.

    Is the part number QL-VV1AC-BC the order number for the whole Ultrix
    package or is it the part number of the piece of paper that the
    license wording is written on. There is a difference. If this number
    is the Ultrix package, then SDC would expand the order list by
    entering that part number and the expansion would generate a list
    of other part numbers. The Picker-Packers would then start to
    fill a box and tick off each part number of that list.

    Now, if a license agreement had a part number, it would be
    on the list. On the -10 side, including its -11 business,
    I don't recall ever reviewing our BoM paperwork containing
    a part number that was piece of paper called a license.

    >There are probably fifty or so other different OS licenses in there.


    They can't be licenses for the OS. They must be application
    licenses or compiler licenses such as FORTRAN or DECnet.


    > Some
    >are transferrable PAKs but most are not.


    I don't know the biz changed after DEC became Digital.
    I can't imagine that the whole SDC infrastructure was changed.
    Digital wouldn't have shipped anything and I know they shipped
    JMF's stuff.

    /BAH


  12. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <4uu503F19j1i2U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > You lease a house. The lease grants rights to live in the house but
    > only to the leasor, you. You decide to sub-let it to your daughter
    > and the leasor comes forward to tell you you can't do that. And, yes,
    > it is perfectly legal and done all the time.


    And some states have laws limiting the landlords ability to do that.
    But I don't think many have laws limiting the rights of the owner
    of IP.


  13. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article <45892e4d$1_4@news.bluewin.ch>, "Giorgio Ungarelli" writes:

    > Americans (especially the ones that have never lived anywhere except in the
    > USA) seem to think that the laws in the USA apply to all countries in the
    > world. It is truly sad.


    Hm. Must be some place we haven't invaded recently. Fortunatly
    the administration will probably change before we can get around to
    all of them.


  14. Re: Booting a new OS on DEC equipment [was Re: Mentec US is gone!]

    In article ,
    Rich Alderson wrote:
    >NB: I'm not addressing any of the IP questions, just the mechanical one.
    >
    >jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
    >
    >> I haven't kept up with licensing...this one has to allow you to boot the

    old
    >> system and run it (you have to do this to install the new set of OS bits).

    >
    >> Or does the system software disk come as a rom and you don't copy it to

    your
    >> local structures?

    >
    >Hi, Barb,
    >
    >On KL-10 systems, at least, three floppies (or three DECtapes, for older

    boxes)
    >were shipped, containing RSX-20F. The boot ROM in the 11/40 could boot the
    >front end from those floppies or DECtapes, and the front end could set up the
    >microcode for the back end and load BOOT into back-end memory, to load the
    >appropriate OS from mag tape.
    >
    >(On the KS-10, the 8080 front-end processor apparently can do the microcode
    >loading and start BOOT directly from mag tape.)
    >
    >There doesn't have to be any runnable system on the box to install a new OS

    (or
    >I'd be SOL after head crashes).


    I was trying to ask if the whole contents of our -10 equivalent
    of SYS: was now on that rom. Note that our SYS: included a file
    that contained the -11's disk structure.

    >
    >Given the on-going development of the 11 family after
    >the 11/40, I'd expect the
    >same thing, mutatis mutandis ceterisque paribus, to be true
    >for installing a new OS on an 11.


    I wouldn't assume the same thing. With the increases in I/O
    and access speeds, I don't think I'd have the installation include
    the users' system disks at all. That would make things simplier
    w.r.t. property discussions of territory. I'd be able to "tell"
    alot more if I knew whether the distrubition media was writable
    and got written during an install.


    >On an 8 it's even simpler: A dozen instructions or so from the toggles, and
    >you can boot whatever medium you like. I think the 18-bit family were more
    >like the 8 than like the 11, but I could be wrong.


    But this stuff is just setting hardware bits to look for bit
    streams else where and setting up the basic I/O rules for
    those hardware paths.

    /BAH


  15. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    wrote:
    > kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>What is the part number of...say...the OS license in your box?

    >>
    >>Well, the one on the top of the box is an Ultrix license, QL-VV1AC-BC.


    >Is the part number QL-VV1AC-BC the order number for the whole Ultrix
    >package or is it the part number of the piece of paper that the
    >license wording is written on. There is a difference. If this number
    >is the Ultrix package, then SDC would expand the order list by
    >entering that part number and the expansion would generate a list
    >of other part numbers. The Picker-Packers would then start to
    >fill a box and tick off each part number of that list.


    I don't know. That's the question. But on the license agreement sheet
    there is a field saying "Part Number:" and that is the number there. I
    _believe_ this is the part number that I would use to order an operating
    system without the media kit as well.

    >Now, if a license agreement had a part number, it would be
    >on the list. On the -10 side, including its -11 business,
    >I don't recall ever reviewing our BoM paperwork containing
    >a part number that was piece of paper called a license.


    For some of the operating systems that is indeed the case. You ordered
    the operating system media and they came with a shrinkwrap-style contract
    on the first page of the manual. In that case, I assume the media includes
    the right to use since the media comes with the contract.

    >>There are probably fifty or so other different OS licenses in there.

    >
    >They can't be licenses for the OS. They must be application
    >licenses or compiler licenses such as FORTRAN or DECnet.


    No, they are mostly Ultrix licenses. I have a couple hundred Fortran,
    DVNETEND, etc. licenses in boxes around here also.

    >> Some
    >>are transferrable PAKs but most are not.

    >
    >I don't know the biz changed after DEC became Digital.
    >I can't imagine that the whole SDC infrastructure was changed.
    >Digital wouldn't have shipped anything and I know they shipped
    >JMF's stuff.


    I don't either, and I also don't know what happened when Compaq took
    over. Part of the problem was that DEC started out as a hardware vendor,
    only selling software because it ran on their hardware and was required
    to make their hardware useful. Their original aims changed, of course,
    as the software became more valuable and clone systems appeared so that
    the software could be run without their hardware.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

  16. Re: Booting a new OS on DEC equipment [was Re: Mentec US is gone!]

    wrote:
    >In article ,
    >
    >>On an 8 it's even simpler: A dozen instructions or so from the toggles, and
    >>you can boot whatever medium you like. I think the 18-bit family were more
    >>like the 8 than like the 11, but I could be wrong.

    >
    >But this stuff is just setting hardware bits to look for bit
    >streams else where and setting up the basic I/O rules for
    >those hardware paths.


    Setting hardware bits in a _copyrighted_ manner. Who owns the rights to
    those dozen words?
    --scott

    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

  17. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    On 21 Dec 2006 07:56:50 -0600, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org
    (Bob Koehler) wrote:

    >In article <4uu503F19j1i2U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >>
    >> You lease a house. The lease grants rights to live in the house but
    >> only to the leasor, you. You decide to sub-let it to your daughter
    >> and the leasor comes forward to tell you you can't do that. And, yes,
    >> it is perfectly legal and done all the time.

    >
    > And some states have laws limiting the landlords ability to do that.
    > But I don't think many have laws limiting the rights of the owner
    > of IP.


    Certainly I don't believe such a term as Bill describes is possible in
    a British lease; it's very common in London and other large cities
    with apartment-type buildings for the developer to retain the freehold
    of the land and buildings, and the individual apartments are sold as
    99 year (or even longer) leases rather than freehold (the lease for
    the entire 99 years is paid upfront, it's not a monthly thing).

    These leaseshold properties are bought, sold, and mortgaged on the
    open market exactly like 'normal' freehold property, with the price
    dependent on market conditions and how much of the lease remains
    (clearly if there's only a few years remaining it's not worth very
    much). They may or may not contain sublet clauses, but you're free to
    give or sell the lease itself to anyone you like, without any veto
    power from the freehold owners.

    Yes, some software is 'leased' - especially in the IBM mainframe
    market, rather than a one-time charge the software license calls for
    monthly payments for as long as you use the software, and sometimes
    also dependent on *how much* you use the software - it's effectively
    metered, like electricty or timeshare.

    This is not relevant to the DEC stuff we're talking about, where the
    license is AFAIK bought on a one-time payment and is yours forever
    with no further payments due - exactly like a house. Except many
    software companies want to take away your right to sell the house, and
    some courts say they can't do that, and I think the courts are Good
    and Right and the software companies are Bad and Wrong. That's really
    all that's to it.

    Mike
    --
    http://www.corestore.org
    'As I walk along these shores
    I am the history within'

  18. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    "Bob Koehler" wrote in message
    newsMZqv9a1utoh@eisner.encompasserve.org...
    > In article <45892e4d$1_4@news.bluewin.ch>, "Giorgio Ungarelli" > ungarelli dot net> writes:
    >
    >> Americans (especially the ones that have never lived anywhere except in
    >> the
    >> USA) seem to think that the laws in the USA apply to all countries in the
    >> world. It is truly sad.

    >
    > Hm. Must be some place we haven't invaded recently. Fortunatly
    > the administration will probably change before we can get around to
    > all of them.
    >


    Put one of the following bumper stickers (they are all actually in
    available) on your car(s) then:

    2008: End of an Error
    If You Can Read This, You're Not Our President
    That's OK. I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway
    Bush Never Exhaled
    Cheney/Satan '08
    Let's Fix Democracy in This Country First
    You want a nation ruled by religion? Move to Iran.
    George W. Bush: Like a rock (only dumber)
    George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight
    America: One Nation, Under Surveillance
    They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It
    Jail to the Chief
    Bad President! No Banana.
    We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language
    We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them
    Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?
    When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46
    The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century
    At Least Nixon Resigned





  19. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
    > In article ,
    > kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>I have boxes of license certificates sitting here... but they all are
    >>>>assigning the licenses to someone else, not to me. And they are not
    >>>>transferrable, so they do not legally authorize me to use the software.
    >>>
    >>>What is the part number of...say...the OS license in your box?

    >>
    >>Well, the one on the top of the box is an Ultrix license, QL-VV1AC-BC.

    >
    >
    > I don't know how to ask the next question so you understand what I'm
    > trying to find out; so bear with me :-). In addition, I wasn't familiar
    > with the Ultrix biz so I can't "decode" the part number. All those
    > letters plus their position mean something.
    >
    > Is the part number QL-VV1AC-BC the order number for the whole Ultrix
    > package or is it the part number of the piece of paper that the
    > license wording is written on. There is a difference. If this number
    > is the Ultrix package, then SDC would expand the order list by
    > entering that part number and the expansion would generate a list
    > of other part numbers. The Picker-Packers would then start to
    > fill a box and tick off each part number of that list.
    >
    > Now, if a license agreement had a part number, it would be
    > on the list. On the -10 side, including its -11 business,
    > I don't recall ever reviewing our BoM paperwork containing
    > a part number that was piece of paper called a license.
    >


    I don't remember specifically with our old RSTS/E licenses, but I
    don't think the license was a part with a part number that was
    included with the kit. I think the license was a contract that
    you had to execute *before* the sales people would submit the
    order to the SDC, so the SDC really had nothing to do with it.

    You would order the system, including software, the sales
    person would hand you or mail you or fax you (or I suppose
    nowadays they would email you) a copy of the license agreement,
    which you would sign and send back to DEC (or mail it or fax
    it or whatever), and on receipt of the signed license agreement,
    the sales person would submit the order to the SDC and billing.

    For a hobbyist program using existing software scavenged from
    the field, there would be no submission to SDC, nothing to
    send back to the customer (except maybe an email acknowledgment
    that the signed license agreement had been received and it was
    okay to go ahead), and nothing to bill (for a free hobbyist
    license). (For a charged hobbyist license, they would almost
    certainly require pre-payment via credit card, PayPal, etc.,
    so the "billing" part would already be done.) The "sales
    person" (most like an email delivery agent such as procmail
    or deliver) would just file the license agreement in a (email)
    folder and send an acknowledgment.

    The part number on the license agreement is most likely either
    the part number of the piece of paper, or the part number of
    the kit that will be shipped in response to DEC/Compaq/HP, or
    the part number used by billing so the customer would get
    charged for the license, not so a physical object could get
    sent to the customer.

    >
    >>There are probably fifty or so other different OS licenses in there.

    >
    >
    > They can't be licenses for the OS. They must be application
    > licenses or compiler licenses such as FORTRAN or DECnet.
    >
    >
    >
    >> Some
    >>are transferrable PAKs but most are not.

    >


    Did Ultrix-11 use PAKs? I'm pretty sure neither RSTS/E nor RSX
    nor RT11 ever did. The PAK is not a license and the license
    should not be confused with the PAK.

    >
    > I don't know the biz changed after DEC became Digital.
    > I can't imagine that the whole SDC infrastructure was changed.
    > Digital wouldn't have shipped anything and I know they shipped
    > JMF's stuff.
    >
    > /BAH
    >



    --
    John Santos
    Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
    781-861-0670 ext 539

  20. Re: Mentec US is gone!

    In article ,
    John Santos writes:
    >
    > Did Ultrix-11 use PAKs? I'm pretty sure neither RSTS/E nor RSX
    > nor RT11 ever did. The PAK is not a license and the license
    > should not be confused with the PAK.


    Ultrix-11 had no built-in licensing system. I don't think much
    of anything did. RT-11 and RSTS don't and I am fairly certain
    RSX doesn't either but haven't run a recent version. Ultrix-32
    did, however. And pretty much everything since then.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    bill@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast