LMF and abandonned products - VMS

This is a discussion on LMF and abandonned products - VMS ; In article , "Richard B. Gilbert" writes: > JF Mezei wrote: >> Bill Gunshannon wrote: >> >>> No pandora's box. It is flat out illegal. Just like faking licenses >>> for VMS or Windows or MS Office. >> >> Ok, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: LMF and abandonned products

  1. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article ,
    "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    > JF Mezei wrote:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>
    >>> No pandora's box. It is flat out illegal. Just like faking licenses
    >>> for VMS or Windows or MS Office.

    >>
    >> Ok, just for the sake of discussion here. Say company X writes a piece
    >> of software that was last updated in 1990. Company X has since gone out
    >> of business.
    >>
    >> Wouldn't copyright eventually expire on said piece of software and it
    >> would then become fair game to start to use it without paying a licence ?
    >>
    >>
    >> OK, lets take a theoretical case of VAX-Book. It is sold to SSI
    >> technologies in the 1990s. Since then, SSI hasn't developped it, but
    >> remains in business due to other products.
    >>
    >> What does SSI have to do to keep "ownership" of VAX-Book and prevent the
    >> copyright from lapsing ? Just fill out some form every 5 years ?

    >
    > ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author,
    > whichever is greater.


    Berne Convention says 50 years after the death of the author.

    bill

    --
    Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    University of Scranton |
    Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include

  2. Re: PDP-11 newsgroups, was: Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On 24 Jun 2008 00:39:41 GMT, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

    >In article ,
    > glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
    >> Simon Clubley wrote:
    >> (snip)
    >>
    >>> PS: BTW, how would you feel about an re-implemention of a PDP-11/other
    >>> DEC OS that was done from public documentation ? (I'm thinking here about
    >>> how Linux re-implemented Unix here) Would you regard that as stealing a
    >>> vendor's product as well ? :-)

    >>
    >> You mean "look and feel?"
    >>
    >> Like what Windows stole from Apple?

    >
    >That Apple had previously stolen from XEROX?


    You ARE Johnny Billquist and I claim my five pounds...

    :-)

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

  3. Re: PDP-11 newsgroups, was: Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On 24 Jun 2008 00:38:32 GMT, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:



    >Well, I was always one who beleived in the letter of the law and while
    >IANAL, and we have been over this too many times already, I have always
    >read the Mentec Hobbyist license as saying; "non-commercial uses in
    >conjunction with the EMULATOR" and "EMULATOR shall mean software owned by
    >Digital Equipment Corporation". Considering that Digital Equipment
    >Corporation does not and has not existed in quite some time I still
    >don't see any way anyone can claim to be abiding by the original Mentec
    >License.


    I don't see that as being a problem; I think there's an *implicit* "or their
    heirs and successors" or similar language in there - the changes in names and
    ownership aren't a big deal.

    But as I have said, the insurmountable problem is 'owned by'; SIMH is and AFAIK
    never has been 'owned by' DEC/Compaq/HP.

    So we agree, for different reasons.

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

  4. Re: PDP-11 newsgroups, was: Re: LMF and abandonned products

    Mike Ross skrev:
    > On 24 Jun 2008 00:39:41 GMT, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> glen herrmannsfeldt writes:
    >>> Simon Clubley wrote:
    >>> (snip)
    >>>
    >>>> PS: BTW, how would you feel about an re-implemention of a PDP-11/other
    >>>> DEC OS that was done from public documentation ? (I'm thinking here about
    >>>> how Linux re-implemented Unix here) Would you regard that as stealing a
    >>>> vendor's product as well ? :-)
    >>> You mean "look and feel?"
    >>>
    >>> Like what Windows stole from Apple?

    >> That Apple had previously stolen from XEROX?

    >
    > You ARE Johnny Billquist and I claim my five pounds...
    >
    > :-)


    Hey! WHen did you claim that?
    Besides, Bill don't RSX, but I do. And I even have licenses... :-)

    Johnny

    --
    Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
    || on a psychedelic trip
    email: bqt@softjar.se || Reading murder books
    pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

  5. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <6cavdtF3f84fnU3@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article <485bc1a9$0$20523$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    > JF Mezei writes:
    >> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>
    >>> No pandora's box. It is flat out illegal. Just like faking licenses
    >>> for VMS or Windows or MS Office.

    >>
    >> Ok, just for the sake of discussion here. Say company X writes a piece
    >> of software that was last updated in 1990. Company X has since gone out
    >> of business.
    >>
    >> Wouldn't copyright eventually expire on said piece of software and it
    >> would then become fair game to start to use it without paying a licence ?

    >
    >Sure. Current Berne Convention rules say "50 years after the death of
    >the author" Not sure how author would be defined in the case of a
    >corporate work for hire, but 50 years is still along time. :-)
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> OK, lets take a theoretical case of VAX-Book. It is sold to SSI
    >> technologies in the 1990s. Since then, SSI hasn't developped it, but
    >> remains in business due to other products.
    >>
    >> What does SSI have to do to keep "ownership" of VAX-Book and prevent the
    >> copyright from lapsing ? Just fill out some form every 5 years ?

    >
    >Probably nothing. But, they could always just modify some piece of it
    >with a new copyright every year or so and there is no requirement that
    >they release it outside of the corporation.
    >

    But surely that would be a new derived work and would not affect the copyright
    period for the original work.

    David Webb
    Security team leader
    CCSS
    Middlesex University


    >bill
    >
    >--
    >Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    >billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    >University of Scranton |
    >Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


  6. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <6cavumF3f84fnU5@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >In article ,
    > "Richard B. Gilbert" writes:
    >> JF Mezei wrote:
    >>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> No pandora's box. It is flat out illegal. Just like faking licenses
    >>>> for VMS or Windows or MS Office.
    >>>
    >>> Ok, just for the sake of discussion here. Say company X writes a piece
    >>> of software that was last updated in 1990. Company X has since gone out
    >>> of business.
    >>>
    >>> Wouldn't copyright eventually expire on said piece of software and it
    >>> would then become fair game to start to use it without paying a licence ?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> OK, lets take a theoretical case of VAX-Book. It is sold to SSI
    >>> technologies in the 1990s. Since then, SSI hasn't developped it, but
    >>> remains in business due to other products.
    >>>
    >>> What does SSI have to do to keep "ownership" of VAX-Book and prevent the
    >>> copyright from lapsing ? Just fill out some form every 5 years ?

    >>
    >> ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author,
    >> whichever is greater.

    >
    >Berne Convention says 50 years after the death of the author.


    US CODE: Title 17, Chapter 3, Section 302 (a,b,c)
    Duration of Copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 1978 says:

    (a) IN GENERAL. -- Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978,
    subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following sub-
    sections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70
    years after the author's death.

    (b) JOIN WORKS. -- In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors
    who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the
    life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such surviving author's
    death.

    (c) ANONYMOUS WORKS, PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS, AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE. -- In the
    case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the
    copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publica-
    tion, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires
    first. {...}


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  7. Re: PDP-11 newsgroups, was: Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On 24 Jun 2008 00:38:32 GMT, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
    wrote:

    >> PS: BTW, how would you feel about an re-implemention of a PDP-11/other
    >> DEC OS that was done from public documentation ? (I'm thinking here about
    >> how Linux re-implemented Unix here) Would you regard that as stealing a
    >> vendor's product as well ? :-)

    >
    >I have brought up the suggestion that there is probably more than
    >enough expertise available to do that many times in the past 15
    >years. I have never had anyone get back to me about starting such
    >a program.


    Well, who really feels inspired to help out the newsgroups self-
    appointed sheriff and resident curmudgeon :-)

    I redid RT-11/SJ a few years ago and I still tinker with it from time
    to time. It was supposed to be a quick project based on some bits and
    pieces I had lying around but ended up taking a lot more of my
    attention.

    There's an early *alpha* version of RUST/SJ, free for hobbyist use at:

    http://www.geocities.com/~hammodotcom/pdp/rust1.zip

    The alpha kit is about two years old and I've done quite a few fixes
    etc since then. I'll put together a new package if there's any
    interest shown. I've tested the system on a range of PDP-11s kindly
    supplied by Andy Stewart, but the new drivers I put together for the
    project will need additional shaking down.

    The system, RUST/SJ, is more like a single-job version of RT-11/FB.
    There are lots of extras including transparent Ethernet file
    connection to a Windows host, a sub-directory system etc. Most of the
    utilities are there but there's no program development software (i.e.
    MACRO/LINK etc).

    I recently put together an alpha version of RUST/XM which is a
    multi-user, multi-process version of RT-11 (based on my earlier
    SHAREplus) but I haven't put together a distribution kit for that
    system yet.

    The most obvious shortcoming of the SJ kit is the documentation. I
    tried to do it all in the HELP system, but it all got a bit
    topsy-turvy at times. The kit assumes you're installing from a Windows
    but it should be possible, with a bit more pain, to install from other
    platforms.

    Ian

  8. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <7rej6n5k4f.fsf@sjtufted.puffin.com>, Chris Jewell writes:
    >
    > Copyright and patent are NOT inherent natural rights, as are the
    > ownership rights in a physical object which I have made with my own
    > hands, or crops which I have grown by my own labor.


    I see nothing natural or inherent in any of these, they are all
    conventions of our society which some other societies have not
    needed.

    But I do like having them recognised by law.


  9. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

    > (c) ANONYMOUS WORKS, PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS, AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE. -- In the
    > case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the
    > copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publica-
    > tion, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires
    > first. {...}


    Ok, silly question here:

    It is clear that IBM couldn't steal VMS code and integrate it into MVS.


    However, if a licence is forged and someone uses the software without
    paying for it, isn't this just theft instead of copyright infringement ?

    If this is theft, isn't the test whether you are depriving someone of
    revenue or a possession ?

  10. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <486151b6$0$22481$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    >
    >> (c) ANONYMOUS WORKS, PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS, AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE. -- In the
    >> case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the
    >> copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publica-
    >> tion, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires
    >> first. {...}

    >
    >Ok, silly question here:
    >
    >It is clear that IBM couldn't steal VMS code and integrate it into MVS.
    >
    >
    >However, if a licence is forged and someone uses the software without
    >paying for it, isn't this just theft instead of copyright infringement ?
    >
    >If this is theft, isn't the test whether you are depriving someone of
    >revenue or a possession ?


    Semantics, JF.


    --
    VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

    "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

    http://tmesis.com/drat.html

  11. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On Jun 24, 2:57*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
    > > (c) ANONYMOUS WORKS, PSEUDONYMOUS WORKS, AND WORKS MADE FOR HIRE. -- Inthe
    > > case of an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the
    > > copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publica-
    > > tion, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires
    > > first. *{...}

    >
    > Ok, silly question here:
    >
    > It is clear that IBM couldn't steal VMS code and integrate it into MVS.
    >
    > However, if a licence is forged and someone uses the software without
    > paying for it, isn't this just theft instead of copyright infringement ?
    >
    > If this is theft, isn't the test whether you are depriving someone of
    > revenue or a possession ?


    I think they settled that (and not for the first time I'd bet) with
    home computer software in the past. Out of print/publication programs
    being circulated certainly didn't deprive the owners of revenue or
    possession, but I do remember reading about some cases (20+ years ago)
    about the owners successfully suing on copyright basis.

    Sorry, no links. If I had time to dig out all my old Byte and
    Creative Computing magazines I'd bet I could find references.

  12. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <6c0dphF3edbf1U2@mid.individual.net>, billg999@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
    >
    > retired != abandoned
    >
    > If the owner of the product does not want you to continue using it
    > that is their right. The product is not abandoned because they
    > aren't willing to meet your demands.


    I believe this to be a major flaw in the concept of extending copyright
    and patent protection to computer software.

    I understand that it is clearly stated in the Constitution that the
    purpose of copyrights and patents is to encourage the sharing of
    knowledge - and other intellectual property (fiction, art, whatever) -
    in order to advance the common good.

    It is very hard to argue that "dog in the manger" tactics of holding
    on to intellectual property rights merely to deny the fruits of
    one's labors to others can in any way advance the common good.

    There was a time when it was controversial whether intellectual
    property rights should even transfer into the domain of computer
    software. But it eventually did, and it is clear that Congress has
    chosen over the years to advance the rights of powerful lobbyists
    instead of choosing what might be for the common good. Since software
    is often dated, not to mention flawed, it is clear that it is very
    much a perishable commodity, and when extending property rights into
    the software domain, this fact could have been taken into account.

    So instead of just passing the DMCA, or, my favorite, the "Sonny
    Bono Copyright Perpetuation Act" (my words. maybe they the same
    thing), Congress might have been more thoughtful and included
    provisions to support the software industry in a reasonable way.

    This could include requiring a certain minimal amount of effort
    on the part of the software owner to correct errors in his software
    and to update it to newer platforms as the older ones became obsolete;
    or, even simpler, to require a fee to extend software intellectual
    property rights for a number of years at a time, basing the fee on,
    say, the original purchase price of the software licenses. Software
    abandonment would then become a clearly defined legal state, and we
    would not be having discussions like "Where is Mentec, and do they
    even exist any more?" on the newsgroups.

    --
    George Cornelius cornelius A T eisner D O T decus D O T org
    cornelius A T mayo D O T edu
    > --
    > Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
    > billg999@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
    > University of Scranton |
    > Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include


  13. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <$5vz7s2RASPy@eisner.encompasserve.org>, BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND (George Cornelius) writes:
    >
    > I understand that it is clearly stated in the Constitution that the
    > purpose of copyrights and patents is to encourage the sharing of
    > knowledge - and other intellectual property (fiction, art, whatever) -
    > in order to advance the common good.


    Care to tell us where? I can find nothing about patents or
    copyrights in the Constitution.


  14. Re: LMF and abandonned products


    "Bob Koehler" wrote in message
    news:vVXHoMG0Aey0@eisner.encompasserve.org...
    > In article <$5vz7s2RASPy@eisner.encompasserve.org>, BEGINcornelius@decuserve.orgEND
    > (George Cornelius) writes:
    >>
    >> I understand that it is clearly stated in the Constitution that the
    >> purpose of copyrights and patents is to encourage the sharing of
    >> knowledge - and other intellectual property (fiction, art, whatever) -
    >> in order to advance the common good.

    >
    > Care to tell us where? I can find nothing about patents or
    > copyrights in the Constitution.


    Article One, Section 8 where it enumerates the powers of Congress:

    'To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
    Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
    and Discoveries'



  15. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On Jun 24, 2:57*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
    > Ok, silly question here:
    >
    > It is clear that IBM couldn't steal VMS code and integrate it into MVS.
    >
    > However, if a licence is forged and someone uses the software without
    > paying for it, isn't this just theft instead of copyright infringement ?
    >
    > If this is theft, isn't the test whether you are depriving someone of
    > revenue or a possession ?


    You're right - it is a silly question.

    Theft applies to property. If IBM did this, and they obviously
    wouldn't, they would have committed at least crimes. First, it is
    copyright infringement since they have used the software without a
    license. Whether they have forced their own personal license does not
    get them around the copyright issue - a license is a legal right, not
    a technical restriction. Secondly, they have violated the DMCA since
    they forged the license - in other words, they've bypassed the copy
    protection in the code. Ditto if you bypass the license check -
    you've just added another crime to the list.

    If the copyright owner won't sell you the code, no matter whether the
    company is in business or not, your best bet is to find another
    product. Somebody does own the copyright since even if the company
    dissolves, the assets probably went to somebody else - a bank, one of
    the owners, etc. No matter how badly you want that product, if you
    can't legally buy a license, give up.

    .../Ed