In article <1oWdnQL2uuCwSBHYnZ2dnUVZ_veinZ2d@comcast.com>,
glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>> Actually, they bought more than they cloned. Did you ever see the
>> Russian clone of the Apple II. It took up the whole top of a desk
>> just for the CPU box. And the Z80 was cloned by using industrial
>> espionage to get copies of the real chip masks from Zilog. They
>> were never bright enough or ambitious enough to truly "clone" anything.
>
>There was a story of a Russian 8080 with masks made from pictures
>of real 8080 chips. That is, directly from images with a little
>enlargement.

Now think of the people who did that work. There was no economy
that would allow some company to create what they needed. I don't
consider the people who managed to create something like this
stupid nor lazy. They certainly had more sticktoitiveness than
I would have.

/BAH

In article <4v2b6dF1aducbU1@mid.individual.net>,
bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>In article ,
> jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>>
>> What I don't understand is why these people have to run the
>> hardware as if it were the old system. If they got the gear
>> out of a dumpster, there shouldn't any emotional attachment
>> to the installed software. So all they have to do is zero
>> the disk and install something they can get permission to run.
>>
>> I don't understand this mentality.
>
>I think it is because we both come from a bery different era in the
>computing industry. :-)

oh...[blushing emoticon here]

So the work that has to be done is training the youngsters how
to be a real systems programmer and not the foo-foos that are
showing up in today's biz.

HMM....I don't think I would know how to get that project started.

/BAH

In article ,
Mike Ross wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Dec 06 14:32:54 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>What I don't understand is why these people have to run the
>>hardware as if it were the old system. If they got the gear
>>out of a dumpster, there shouldn't any emotional attachment
>>to the installed software. So all they have to do is zero
>>the disk and install something they can get permission to run.
>>
>>I don't understand this mentality.
>
>It's a matter of historical accuracy; wherever possible you keep the
>system as close to the working configuration as possible. 'this was
>system x, running jobs y and z at company a from 1977-1998'. You don't
>mess with the installed OS or anything else. If you can get every
>record right back to the original invoices and make a paper trail so
>much the better.

Oh, dear. I've run into people like you before. You are wrong.
First of all if you insist on running pristine, off the shelf,
specific software, you cannot use the code that is currently on
your system. It has been patched, restored, edited, and fixedup.
That is how the world worked back then.

Second of all, which date and time are you going to enter when
you boot up this pristine system? It will have to be pre-Y2K,
plus any date-time specific bugs, answers.

This is software. You cannot run pristine.


>
>When a museum digs an ancient pot out of the ground, do they take
>fresh paint and paint it up nicely so it looks like new? Exactly the
>same situation and motivation.

But they also don't use that pot to cook all their meals in either.

>
>This is where I have an issue with people like Bill and Johnny who
>talk about theft and stealing and make a song and dance about taking
>the extreme moral high ground; to me it's a very debateable question
>as to whether doing posterity a favour by preserving computing's past
>in as much detail as possible is not a more *moral* act than
>scrupulously obeying the somewhat artificial dictates of IP law as
>presently understood in our society. In terms of benefit to society
>and posterity I mean.

But you are not interested in posterity. To keep the -11 business
alive and evolving, Mentec has to be profitable. If it is not,
it will go out of business, and EVERYTHING they have will be lost.
That is not posterity.

I know what I'm talking about. I've seen knowledge go away. I
know what knowledge has disappeared. I have been working for
the last 12 years to keep more knowledge from disappearing.

/BAH

In article ,
"Kelvin Smith" wrote:
>
>"Giorgio Ungarelli" wrote in message
>news:458af6b1_2@news.bluewin.ch...
>> "Bob Koehler" wrote in message
>> newsMZqv9a1utoh@eisner.encompasserve.org...
>>> In article <45892e4d$1_4@news.bluewin.ch>, "Giorgio Ungarelli" >>> at 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
>>
>>
>
>IMHO, people who live in European houses shouldn't throw stones... The
>problems may be different; the severity is at least as bad.
>
Especially when they are in missle range of unfriendly regimes.

/BAH

In article <1u3jh.343$%M1.25@trnddc08>, John Santos wrote:
>jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
>> In article , John Santos wrote:


>> This acknowledgement requires warm human bodies who are paid to
>> do the work. You never, ever use volunteer work for something
>> can bite you on your legal ass.
>>
>
>What work? The acknowlegement is generated by the deliver or
>procmail script.

Who wrote that? Who checks to see it is still working? Who fixes
it if the procedure breaks? Who pays for the computer hard/software
that runs the script?

>No human being ever needs to look at (except
>retroactively, if Mentec decides to investigate a possible
>license violation.)
>
>There is no human labor, volunteer or otherwise.

Why are emulating an idiot?


>>>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.
>>
>>
>> I also think you people are confusing maintenance agreements
>> with licensing.
>>
>>
>
>Wild stab in the dark.

My dear. I have had more decades of experience in this stuff
than you ever will have. It was an educated guess. If you
wish for a comparison on my knowledge about this stuff and your
knowledge about this stuff, I'm at the PhD level and you are still
in diapers.

Now do you have some idea about the difference between yours
and my knowledge?

/BAH

In article ,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>In article ,
> wrote:
>>>>>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 do not understand this. I am not sure you are looking at
>>licenses. Just picking an off-the-wall guess of what you are
>>really looking at is update cover letters. Those have nothing
>>to do with licensing.
>
>I am not looking at update cover letters.

OK.
>
>>> I have a couple hundred Fortran,
>>>DVNETEND, etc. licenses in boxes around here also.
>>
>>No, you are look at update cover letters. There is no
>>way that one ulitrix ship could generate hundreds of
>>license agreements. That would need at least 100 people
>>just dealing with that customer's licensing.
>
>No, I am looking at licenses. And this is not from one Ultrix shipment,
>this is from hundreds of systems over the years, all stacked together in
>a box. I have, well, I have a lot of junk here.

Well, the reason I'm doubting this is because you have hundreds.
Ultrix didn't seem to be that busy and were hanging on by the
skin of their bits (the product was barely selling enough hardware).
So hundreds doesn't compute ;-).

/BAH

In article ,
glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
> Mike Ross wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> This is where I have an issue with people like Bill and Johnny who
>> talk about theft and stealing and make a song and dance about taking
>> the extreme moral high ground; to me it's a very debateable question
>> as to whether doing posterity a favour by preserving computing's past
>> in as much detail as possible is not a more *moral* act than
>> scrupulously obeying the somewhat artificial dictates of IP law as
>> presently understood in our society. In terms of benefit to society
>> and posterity I mean.
>
> Also, there is no reason that fair use wouldn't apply to software,
> in addition to other copyright materials. I don't know that it
> has been tested very well, though.

Well, "fair use" when it comes to things like copyrighted books means
a paragraph or two from the entire book. so I guess in this case it
would bean you are free to pull out 12 words from anywhere in the soft-
ware package in question and use it wiothout paying for a license. Hey,
I'll bet that covers the boot code! :-)

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

pechter@pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) writes:

....

> I'd love to run RSTS and RT11 and RSX11 and IAS on the real pdp11 or
> even an emulated 11... for non-commercial purposes legally. But I
> can't spend a couple of thousand dollars for the rights to the four
> OS's.

> So... I dumped all my PDP stuff and the rest will be dumpstered
> soon.

Well, IAS never went to Mentec, it still belongs to hp, as does
RSX-11A B, C, D, F, DOS-11 and TRAX. Not sure about POS.

Just those, cover a very significant part of computing history and it
is a shame it is not able to be seen and studied.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

> But you couldn't do that (order an OS without the media kit). There
> is no infrastructure that allowed this.

But you could with 11s at least, I saw it happen. Had more media kits
than you could throw a cat at, had an 11 that had been removed from a
now defunct lab and wanted to drop RSX on it. Oh dear, it used to run
RT. So a new licence only was ordered and delivered, no problem any
more.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> wrote:
>>> Who owns the rights to those dozen words?

>>Which ones of those dozen words? Are you talking about the
>>EXE file that resides on your disk? ARe you talking about the
>>source that generates the EXE after LINKing and SAVEing?

> I'm talking about the 12 word bootstrap that you have to toggle into
> the panel to load from media. Are those 12 words copyrighted by
> DEC, and if so, how are they licensed? That's software too. A very
> short piece, but it's still software.

They are just 12 numbers, and numbers can't be copyrighted. You could
copyright the PERFORMANCE of setting each switch, but you would have to
CR every possible sequence. Expensive.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

bob.birch@gmail.com writes:

> A bootstrap as copyright property ? You gotta be kidding !

True, The DLV11 boot would not work on a 73 as it had odd addresses in
it, which the fonz ignored. The `owner' of the code was lost or
something so the whole process wedged.

A couple of other boot had 3rd party owners too I think.

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

William Pechter wrote:
>
>If you want to run Unix on a 32 bit Vax legally there's always BSD or 32V for
>the historic types and NetBSD and OpenBSD for the more security conscious.

Don't 4.2BSD and 32V require both AT&T licenses _and_ licenses from Berkeley?
They used to, when they were current.

Hmm... how about BRL Unix? That still requires the AT&T license but the
rest of it was government-developed and therefore should be available.

The modern NetBSD should be available (and it pretty nice) for most 32-bit
systems, though not for anything smaller.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

>>> Actually, they bought more than they cloned. Did you ever see the
>>> Russian clone of the Apple II. It took up the whole top of a desk
>>> just for the CPU box. And the Z80 was cloned by using industrial
>>> espionage to get copies of the real chip masks from Zilog. They
>>> were never bright enough or ambitious enough to truly "clone" anything.
>>
>>There was a story of a Russian 8080 with masks made from pictures
>>of real 8080 chips. That is, directly from images with a little
>>enlargement.

Has anyone used the Soviet PDP-11 clones? I know that the University of
Oulu in Finland used to have one on the net back in the late eighties,
which was accessable by telnet, and the students that were running it were
kind of proud of the machine.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

wrote:
>
>Well, the reason I'm doubting this is because you have hundreds.
>Ultrix didn't seem to be that busy and were hanging on by the
>skin of their bits (the product was barely selling enough hardware).
>So hundreds doesn't compute ;-).

I have a bunch of Ultrix-16 licenses _because_ it didn't sell well, and
when the machines were shut down nobody wanted the old licenses.

Ultrix/Vax didn't sell very well (because it was really just 4.xBSD+bugs
and DEC had no real idea how to sell it anyway), but later Ultrix on the
DECStation machines were very popular. The Decstation 3100 and 5000 were
really slick machines... the 5000 had graphics hardware better than Suns
at a fraction of the price.

I worked at one site, though, where we had lots of uVax II machines
and wound up relicensing them for Ultrix because they were basically
available for the asking from the surplus property guys and users wanted
Unix.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> wrote:
>>
>>Well, the reason I'm doubting this is because you have hundreds.
>>Ultrix didn't seem to be that busy and were hanging on by the
>>skin of their bits (the product was barely selling enough hardware).
>>So hundreds doesn't compute ;-).
>
> I have a bunch of Ultrix-16 licenses _because_ it didn't sell well, and
> when the machines were shut down nobody wanted the old licenses.

What was Ultrix-16? PDP-11 ran Ultrix-11. VAX ran Ultrix-32. Maybe they
didn't sell well because there was none. :-)

>
> Ultrix/Vax didn't sell very well (because it was really just 4.xBSD+bugs
> and DEC had no real idea how to sell it anyway), but later Ultrix on the
> DECStation machines were very popular. The Decstation 3100 and 5000 were
> really slick machines... the 5000 had graphics hardware better than Suns
> at a fraction of the price.

I had a VAXStation 3100 when I first got to the University. If you want
to now my opinion of it, consider that I now have at least a half-dozen
VAXStation 3100 but not a single DECStation 3100. When I got my first
Sparcstation I it ran circles around the DECStation. Come to think of
it, so did the SUN-3's.

>
> I worked at one site, though, where we had lots of uVax II machines
> and wound up relicensing them for Ultrix because they were basically
> available for the asking from the surplus property guys and users wanted
> Unix.

That's why I would have liked to see HP relases Ultrix-32 like Ultrix-11.
BUt sadly, they are not interested in even talking about it and send you
off looking for NetBSD. Unfortunately, NetBSD has moved forward so far
in its efforts to support other architectures with more horsepower it
is now too much of a dog to run on something the size of a MicroVAX or
VAXStation. Nevermind the fact that much of the VAX Hardware is still
and never will be supported. Litt;e things like DSSI and Graphics, :-)

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

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
>William Pechter wrote:
>>
>>If you want to run Unix on a 32 bit Vax legally there's always BSD or 32V for
>>the historic types and NetBSD and OpenBSD for the more security conscious.
>
>Don't 4.2BSD and 32V require both AT&T licenses _and_ licenses from Berkeley?
>They used to, when they were current.
>
>Hmm... how about BRL Unix? That still requires the AT&T license but the
>rest of it was government-developed and therefore should be available.
>
>The modern NetBSD should be available (and it pretty nice) for most 32-bit
>systems, though not for anything smaller.
>--scott
>--
>"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

For now this isn't a problem thanks to Caldera (pre-SCO).
We can even make derived products... The BSD stuff license is freely
available if you have the 32v... so we should be able to get all that.

SCO of course pulled the web page to it down... But I got the license
back in '2000 or so and have not seen anything from them in writing
or email cancelling the license.

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf

Don't know much about BRL Unix. They were running BSD when I was
a service guy there.

Here's a link to an blog archive about the agreement.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/07/14.html


Caldera Ancient Unix Software License Agreement

Ancient UNIX from CALDERA

CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. HEREBY GRANTS TO YOU THE SPECIAL SOFTWARE
LICENSE AGREEMENT STATED BELOW ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES STATED IN THIS
SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT. BY DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, OR USING
THE ANCIENT UNIX SOURCE CODE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS
SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT, UNDERSTAND IT, AND AGREE TO BE BOUND
BY IT.

CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR
ANCIENT UNIX SOURCE CODE (AGREEMENT)

A.CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. , a California corporation (SCO), having
an office at 400 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, California 95061-1900 and
you as LICENSEE, agree that, as of the Effective Date hereof, as defined
in Section 7.1, the terms and conditions set forth in this AGREEMENT
shall apply to use by LICENSEE of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this
AGREEMENT.

B. CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. makes certain licensing rights for SOURCE
CODE PRODUCTS available under this AGREEMENT, including rights to make
and use DERIVED BINARY PRODUCTS. Such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT is identified
in Section 3 of this AGREEMENT .

C. This AGREEMENT sets forth the entire agreement and understanding
between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and merges all prior
discussions between them, and neither of the parties shall be bound by
any conditions, definitions, warranties, understandings or
representations with respect to such subject matter other than as
expressly provided herein or as duly set forth on or subsequent to the
date of acceptance hereof in writing and signed by a proper and duly
authorized representative of the party to be bound thereby. No provision
appearing on any form originated by LICENSEE shall be applicable unless
such provision is expressly accepted in writing by an authorized
representative of CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.

D. The AUTHORIZED COUNTRY for this AGREEMENT shall be any countries not
excluded by Section 5.2

I. DEFINITIONS

1.1 AUTHORIZED COUNTRY means one or more countries specified above.

1.2 CPU means a computer having one or more processing units and a
single global memory space.

1.3 COMPUTER PROGRAM means any instruction or instructions for
controlling the operation of a CPU.

1.4 DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT means COMPUTER PROGRAMS in OBJECT CODE format
based on a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.

1.5 DESIGNATED CPU means all CPUs licensed as such for a specific SOURCE
CODE PRODUCT.

1.6 OBJECT CODE means a COMPUTER PROGRAM in binary form, resulting from
the compilation of SOURCE CODE by computer or compiler into machine
executable code and which is in a form of computer programs not
convenient to human understanding of the program logic, but which is
appropriate for execution or interpretation by computer.

1.7 SOURCE CODE means COMPUTER PROGRAMS written in certain programming
languages in electronic media form and in a form convenient for reading
and review by a trained individual, such as a printed or written listing
of programs, containing specific algorithms, instructions, plans,
routines and the like, for controlling the operation of a computer
system, but which is not in a form that would be suitable for execution
directly on computer hardware.

1.8 SOURCE CODE PRODUCT means a SCO software offering, primarily in
SOURCE CODE form. Such offering may also include OBJECT CODE components.

1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i)
specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version,
and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating
systems.

2. GRANT OF RIGHTS

2.1 (a) CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. grants to LICENSEE a personal,
nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use, in the AUTHORIZED
COUNTRY, each SOURCE CODE PRODUCT identified in Section 3 of this
AGREEMENT, solely for personal use (as restricted in Section 2.1(b)) and
solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs, and/or Networks of
CPUs, licensed by LICENSEE through this SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE
AGREEMENT for such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT. Such right to use includes the
right to modify such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT and to prepare DERIVED BINARY
PRODUCT based on such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, provided that any such
modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that contains any part of a
SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this AGREEMENT is treated hereunder the
same as such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT. CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. claims no
ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or DERIVED
BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.

(b) Personal use is limited to noncommercial uses. Any such use made in
connection with the development of enhancements or modifications to
SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS is permitted only if (i) neither the results of
such use nor any enhancement or modification so developed is intended
primarily for the benefit of a third party and (ii) any copy of any such
result, enhancement or modification, furnished by LICENSEE to a third
party holder of an equivalent Software License with CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC., where permitted by Section 8.4(b) below, is
furnished for no more than the cost of reproduction and shipping. Any
such copy that includes any portion of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT shall be
subject to the provisions of such Section 8.4.

(c) LICENSEE may produce printed and on-line copies of documentation
included with the SOURCE CODE PRODUCT as necessary for use with the
DESIGNATED CPUs. All copies must include a legally sufficient copyright
notice and a statement that the documents include a portion or all of
CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.'s copyrighted documentation, which is being
reproduced with permission.

(d) Commercial use by LICENSEE of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS or of any result,
enhancement or modification associated with the use of SOURCE CODE
PRODUCTS under this AGREEMENT is not permitted. Such commercial use is
permissible only pursuant to the terms of an appropriate commercial
software agreement between CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. or a corporate
affiliate thereof and LICENSEE. For purposes of this AGREEMENT,
commercial use includes, but is not limited to, furnishing copies to
third parties in a manner not permitted by Section 8.4(b).

(e) CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. also grants LICENSEE a personal,
nontransferable and nonexclusive right to make copies of DERIVED BINARY
PRODUCTS and, subject to U. S. Government export requirements and to
Section 8.4(b), to furnish such copies directly to other LICENSEES who
have an equivalent Software License with CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
before or at the time of furnishing each copy of a DERIVED BINARY
PRODUCT.

2.2 (a) Any notice acknowledging a contribution of a third party
appearing in a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT shall be included in corresponding
portions of DERIVED BINARY PRODUCTS made by LICENSEE.

(b) Each portion of a DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT shall include an
appropriate copyright notice. Such copyright notice may be the copyright
notice or notices appearing in or on the corresponding portions of the
SOURCE CODE PRODUCT on which such DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT is based or, if
copyrightable changes are made in developing such DERIVED BINARY
PRODUCT, a copyright notice identifying the owner of such changes.

2.3 No right is granted hereunder to use any trademark of CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. (or a corporate affiliate thereof). However,
LICENSEE must state in packaging, labeling or otherwise that a DERIVED
BINARY PRODUCT is derived from CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.'s software
under license from CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. and identify such
software (including any trademark, provided the proprietor of the
trademark is appropriately identified). LICENSEE agrees not to use a
name or trademark for a DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is confusingly
similar to a name or trademark used by CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. (or a
corporate affiliate thereof).

2.4 A single back-up CPU may be used as a substitute for the DESIGNATED
CPU without notice to CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. during any time when
such DESIGNATED CPU is inoperative because it is malfunctioning or
undergoing repair, maintenance or other modification.

3. LICENSED SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS

The SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS to which CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. grants
rights under this AGREEMENT are restricted to the following UNIX
Operating Systems, including SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMs, that operate
on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating
System with specific exclusion of UNIX System V and successor operating
systems: 16-Bit UNIX Editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 32-bit 32V

4. DELIVERY

CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. makes no guarantees or commitments that any
SOURCE CODE PRODUCT is available from CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. If
available, and upon acceptance by LICENSEE of the terms of this
AGREEMENT, CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. will provide LICENSEE one (1)
copy of such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT via its FTP site established for such
purpose.

5. EXPORT

5.1 LICENSEE agrees that it will not, without the prior written consent
of CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. , export, directly or indirectly, SOURCE
CODE PRODUCTS covered by this AGREEMENT to any country outside of the
AUTHORIZED COUNTRY.

5.2 LICENSEE acknowledges that the SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS, the media, and
any immediate product (including processes) produced directly by the use
of any such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS are subject to export controls under
the U.S. Export Administration Regulations and the export regulations of
other countries. LICENSEE may not export or re-export, directly or
indirectly, the SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS, the media, any related technical
information or materials covered by this AGREEMENT, or any immediate
product (including processes) produced directly by the use of any such
SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS to any country that is in violation of U.S. Export
Administration Regulations and/or the export regulations of other
countries unless an appropriate authorization from the U.S. Commerce
Department and any other relevant government authority has been
obtained.

5.3 LICENSEE agrees that its obligations under Sections 5.1 and 5.2
shall survive and continue after any termination of rights under this
AGREEMENT.

6. FEES AND TAXES

6.1 The rights granted to LICENSEE for use of the SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS
identified in Section 3 above are granted to LICENSEE at no charge.

6.2 LICENSEE shall pay all taxes (and any related interest or penalty),
however designated, imposed as a result of the existence or operation of
this AGREEMENT, except (i) any tax imposed upon CALDERA INTERNATIONAL,
INC. (or a corporate affiliate thereof) in the jurisdiction in which
LICENSEE is located if such tax is allowable as a credit against United
States income taxes of CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. (or such an
affiliate) and (ii) any income tax imposed upon CALDERA INTERNATIONAL,
INC. (or such an affiliate) by the United States or any governmental
entity within the United States proper (the fifty (50) states and the
District of Columbia). To assist in obtaining the credit identified in
(i) of this Section 6.2, LICENSEE shall furnish CALDERA INTERNATIONAL,
INC. with such evidence as may be required by United States taxing
authorities to establish that any such tax has been paid. If CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. is required to collect a tax to be paid by LICENSEE,
LICENSEE shall pay such tax to CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. on demand.

7. TERM

7.1 This AGREEMENT shall become effective on and as of the date of
acceptance of the terms of this AGREEMENT. The initial term of this
AGREEMENT shall be for one (1) year. Thereafter, the AGREEMENT will
automatically renew for successive one (1) year terms unless either
party gives the other, no later than ninety (90) days before the end of
the initial term, or then current extension, written notice of its
intent to terminate this AGREEMENT. Nothing in this AGREEMENT shall be
construed to require either party to extend this AGREEMENT beyond the
initial term or any subsequent term.

7.2 LICENSEE may terminate its rights under this AGREEMENT by written
notice to CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. certifying that LICENSEE has
discontinued use of and returned or destroyed, at CALDERA INTERNATIONAL,
INC.'s option, all copies of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this
AGREEMENT.

7.3 If LICENSEE fails to fulfill one or more of its obligations under
this AGREEMENT, CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. may, upon its election and
in addition to any other remedies it might have, at any time terminate
all the rights granted by it hereunder to LICENSEE. Upon such
termination LICENSEE shall immediately discontinue use of and return or
destroy, at CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.'s option, all copies of SOURCE
CODE PRODUCTS in its possession.

7.4 In the event of termination of LICENSEE's rights under Sections 7.2
or 7.3, (i) all fees that LICENSEE has become obligated to pay shall
become immediately due and payable and (ii) CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
shall have no obligation to refund any amounts paid to it hereunder.

8. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

8.1 This AGREEMENT shall prevail notwithstanding any conflicting terms
or legends which may appear in a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.

8.2 CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. warrants that it is empowered to grant
the rights granted herein. CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. and other
developers make no other representations or warranties, expressly or
impliedly. By way of example but not of limitation, CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. and other developers make no representations or
warranties of merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose, or
that the use of any SOURCE CODE PRODUCT will not infringe any patent,
copyright or trademark. CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. and other developers
shall not be held to any liability with respect to any claim by
LICENSEE, or a third party on account of, or arising from, the use of
any SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.

8.3 Neither the execution of this AGREEMENT nor anything in any SOURCE
CODE PRODUCT shall be construed as an obligation upon CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. or any other developer to furnish any person,
including LICENSEE, any assistance of any kind whatsoever, or any
information or documentation.

8.4 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the SOURCE CODE
PRODUCTS subject to this AGREEMENT in confidence for CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. LICENSEE further agrees that should it make such
disclosure of any or all of such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS (including methods
or concepts utilized therein) to anyone to whom such disclosure is
necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder, LICENSEE
shall appropriately notify each such person to whom any such disclosure
is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in
confidence and have each such person sign a confidentiality agreement
containing restrictions on disclosure substantially similar to those set
forth herein.

If LICENSEE should become aware of a violation of CALDERA INTERNATIONAL,
INC.'s intellectual property and/or proprietary rights, LICENSEE shall
promptly notify CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. and cooperate with CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. in such enforcement.

If information relating to a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this
AGREEMENT at any time becomes available without restriction to the
general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE, LICENSEE's
obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after
such time.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.4(a), LICENSEE may make
available copies of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, either in modified or
unmodified form, to third parties in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY having
Source Code Licenses of the same scope herewith from CALDERA
INTERNATIONAL, INC. for the same SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, if and only if (i)
LICENSEE first requests verification of the status of the recipient by
contacting CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. at the address contained in
Section 8.8(a) or other number specified by CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
and (ii) CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. gives written verification of the
recipient's software license status. LICENSEE shall maintain a record of
each such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT made available.

8.5 On CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.'s request, but not more frequently
than annually, LICENSEE shall furnish to CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. a
statement, listing the location, type and serial number of the
DESIGNATED CPU hereunder and stating that the use by LICENSEE of SOURCE
CODE PRODUCTS subject to this AGREEMENT has been reviewed and that each
such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT is being used solely on the DESIGNATED CPU (or
temporarily on a back-up CPU) for such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS in full
compliance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT.

8.6 The obligations of LICENSEE under Section 8.4 shall survive and
continue after any termination of rights under this AGREEMENT.

8.7 Neither this AGREEMENT nor any rights hereunder, in whole or in
part, shall be assignable or otherwise transferable by LICENSEE and any
purported assignment or transfer shall be null and void.

8.8 (a) Correspondence with CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. relating to this
AGREEMENT shall be sent to:

CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC.
400 Encinal Street
Santa Cruz, California 95061-1900
United States of America

Attention: Law and Corporate Affairs

8.9 LICENSEE shall obtain all approvals from any governmental authority
in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY required to effectuate this AGREEMENT
according to its terms, including any such approvals required for
LICENSEE to make payments to CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. pursuant to
this AGREEMENT. LICENSEE shall bear all expenses associated with
obtaining such approvals.

8.10 The construction and performance of this AGREEMENT shall be
governed by the laws of the State of California, USA.


Bill
--
--
"When I think back on all the crap I learned in Vax school
It's a wonder I fixed anything at all." (to the tune of Kodachrome)
pechter-at-ureach.com

On Sat, 23 Dec 06 13:21:05 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

>In article ,
> Mike Ross wrote:

>>It's a matter of historical accuracy; wherever possible you keep the
>>system as close to the working configuration as possible. 'this was
>>system x, running jobs y and z at company a from 1977-1998'. You don't
>>mess with the installed OS or anything else. If you can get every
>>record right back to the original invoices and make a paper trail so
>>much the better.
>
>Oh, dear. I've run into people like you before. You are wrong.
>First of all if you insist on running pristine, off the shelf,
>specific software, you cannot use the code that is currently on
>your system. It has been patched, restored, edited, and fixedup.
>That is how the world worked back then.

No no no no no, you don't get it... it's a matter of preserving the
system *exactly as-is*; with whatever customer mods, patches, fixes,
and bespoke software have or have not been applied. Running 'pristine,
off the shelf' software is a poor third or fourth best... better than
nothing, so long as it's contemporary and as close as possible to what
the customer was actually running. 'off the shelf' software is exactly
what I *don't* want to use, if at all possible. I want to use exactly
what the customer used, when they last switched the system off.

>Second of all, which date and time are you going to enter when
>you boot up this pristine system? It will have to be pre-Y2K,
>plus any date-time specific bugs, answers.

Yep. Date the system was switched off is usually a good bet.

>This is software. You cannot run pristine.

Nor would I want to - see above.

>>When a museum digs an ancient pot out of the ground, do they take
>>fresh paint and paint it up nicely so it looks like new? Exactly the
>>same situation and motivation.
>
>But they also don't use that pot to cook all their meals in either.

Of course not - they keep it in as near 'as found' condition as
possible, consistent with long-term preservation. Same as my aim with
ancient computers. This includes whatever OS and applications they
were running.

>>This is where I have an issue with people like Bill and Johnny who
>>talk about theft and stealing and make a song and dance about taking
>>the extreme moral high ground; to me it's a very debateable question
>>as to whether doing posterity a favour by preserving computing's past
>>in as much detail as possible is not a more *moral* act than
>>scrupulously obeying the somewhat artificial dictates of IP law as
>>presently understood in our society. In terms of benefit to society
>>and posterity I mean.
>
>But you are not interested in posterity. To keep the -11 business
>alive and evolving, Mentec has to be profitable. If it is not,
>it will go out of business, and EVERYTHING they have will be lost.
>That is not posterity.

No... I don't know what the future holds for current and evolving
versions of the -11 OSes. And (meaning no disrespect to those who are
very interested in this), that's not *my* primary concern - I'm only
interested in the past.

>I know what I'm talking about. I've seen knowledge go away. I
>know what knowledge has disappeared. I have been working for
>the last 12 years to keep more knowledge from disappearing.

I know enough LCG history to know what you're talking about and
believe me I'm in total agreement and sympathy. But that doesn't have
any bearing on *my* chosen mission, preservation of entire systems
from the past.

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

On 23 Dec 2006 11:21:25 -0500, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>>> Actually, they bought more than they cloned. Did you ever see the
>>>> Russian clone of the Apple II. It took up the whole top of a desk
>>>> just for the CPU box. And the Z80 was cloned by using industrial
>>>> espionage to get copies of the real chip masks from Zilog. They
>>>> were never bright enough or ambitious enough to truly "clone" anything.
>>>
>>>There was a story of a Russian 8080 with masks made from pictures
>>>of real 8080 chips. That is, directly from images with a little
>>>enlargement.
>
>Has anyone used the Soviet PDP-11 clones? I know that the University of
>Oulu in Finland used to have one on the net back in the late eighties,
>which was accessable by telnet, and the students that were running it were
>kind of proud of the machine.

Different scale of machine, but this looks entertaining:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=120059853068

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

wrote:
>
>They are just 12 numbers, and numbers can't be copyrighted. You could
>copyright the PERFORMANCE of setting each switch, but you would have to
>CR every possible sequence. Expensive.

But that's true of _all_ software. It's all just numbers.

I think there is some common law on the subject, having to do with copyrighting
log tables.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."