LMF and abandonned products - VMS

This is a discussion on LMF and abandonned products - VMS ; OK, this is a very grey area, I know. Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in the hobbyist package). Technically speaking, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: LMF and abandonned products

  1. LMF and abandonned products

    OK, this is a very grey area, I know.

    Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for
    which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in
    the hobbyist package).

    Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake
    licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require
    a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ?

    Also, if one VESts (or whatever name it has this week) a DEC VAX product
    to Alpha. Will the VAX licence function on the Alpha for that product ?
    (it is a product that never existed on alpha so no alpha licences would
    have ever been generated).

    Or is the best approach to go to VMS management and request that they
    issue a generic licence that would be posted on the freeware site ?
    (like they did for Notes).

    For some products, notably the PSPINT utility (postscript to sixel), I
    suspect VMS management would not be able to do this because this product
    came with lots of parts belonging to Adobe).


    Reason I bring this up was a recent request for VAX DOCUMENT. This is a
    tough issue because it is supp0sedly not onwed by VMS anymore, but the
    company that supposedly owns it has long ago retired it or whatever.

  2. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    JF Mezei wrote:
    > OK, this is a very grey area, I know.
    >
    > Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for
    > which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in
    > the hobbyist package).
    >
    > Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake
    > licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require
    > a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ?
    > [...rest snipped...]


    Producing a fake licence is very easy.

    Patching the image to check the licence of another product
    is also very easy (even using EDT ;-) ).

    Note I 've never done either of the above ...











    (in the last couple of days).

  3. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On 19 Jun, 10:36, JF Mezei wrote:
    > OK, this is a very grey area, I know.
    >
    > Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for
    > which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in
    > the hobbyist package).
    >
    > Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake
    > licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require
    > a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ?
    >
    > Also, if one VESts (or whatever name it has this week) a DEC VAX product
    > to Alpha. Will the VAX licence function on the Alpha for that product ?
    > (it is a product that never existed on alpha so no alpha licences would
    > have ever been generated).
    >
    > Or is the best approach to go to VMS management and request that they
    > issue a generic licence that would be posted on the freeware site ?
    > (like they did for Notes).
    >
    > For some products, notably the PSPINT utility (postscript to sixel), I
    > suspect VMS management would not be able to do this because this product
    > came with lots of parts belonging to Adobe).
    >
    > Reason I bring this up was a recent request for VAX DOCUMENT. This is a
    > tough issue because it is supp0sedly not onwed by VMS anymore, but the
    > company that supposedly owns it has long ago retired it or whatever.



    VAX DOCUMENT is not owned by HP. Really, it is not and never has been.
    So any part of HP including VMS management can not legally issue
    licences for it as they don't own it.

    Ask the current owners of DOCUMENT - http://www.ttinet.com/decdocument.html

  4. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    IanMiller wrote:

    > VAX DOCUMENT is not owned by HP. Really, it is not and never has been.


    But Digital used to issue licences for it with producer=DEC prior to
    Palmer starting his slash and burn and selling DOCUMENT and many other
    products.

  5. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <485a2a17$0$7219$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >OK, this is a very grey area, I know.
    >
    >Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for
    >which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in
    >the hobbyist package).
    >
    >Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake
    >licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require
    >a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ?


    Technically, it's a piece of cake. Feigned PAKs can easily be generated.
    Product's image(s) can be easily hacked/patched. One could even rewrite
    the SYS$GRANT_LICENSE service to allow it.

    Legally, it can be a pandora's box.

    --
    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

  6. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    >>Ask the current owners of DOCUMENT - \
    >> http://www.ttinet.com/decdocument.html


    I tried - no reply to phone or email. Has anyone else tried recently...



  7. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <485a2a17$0$7219$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    JF Mezei writes:
    > OK, this is a very grey area, I know.
    >
    > Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for
    > which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in
    > the hobbyist package).
    >
    > Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake
    > licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require
    > a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ?


    It would be illegal and I would hope there is no one here stupid enough
    to tell how to do it in a public forum. There is no such thing as
    "abandoned" software. It still belongs to someone and they are not
    required to provide licenses for continued use if they choose not to.

    >
    > Also, if one VESts (or whatever name it has this week) a DEC VAX product
    > to Alpha. Will the VAX licence function on the Alpha for that product ?
    > (it is a product that never existed on alpha so no alpha licences would
    > have ever been generated).
    >
    > Or is the best approach to go to VMS management and request that they
    > issue a generic licence that would be posted on the freeware site ?
    > (like they did for Notes).
    >
    > For some products, notably the PSPINT utility (postscript to sixel), I
    > suspect VMS management would not be able to do this because this product
    > came with lots of parts belonging to Adobe).
    >
    >
    > Reason I bring this up was a recent request for VAX DOCUMENT. This is a
    > tough issue because it is supp0sedly not onwed by VMS anymore, but the
    > company that supposedly owns it has long ago retired it or whatever.


    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. Damn, this is starting to
    look like the PDP-11 newsgroups.

    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

  8. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <485a34c7$0$7335$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
    VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
    > In article <485a2a17$0$7219$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei writes:
    >>OK, this is a very grey area, I know.
    >>
    >>Say you have an old Digital product which has been abandonned, and for
    >>which new licences can't seem to be obtainable (and are not included in
    >>the hobbyist package).
    >>
    >>Technically speaking, how difficult would it be to either produce a fake
    >>licence that works, or patch the vax image of the product to not require
    >>a licence (or perhaps check licence of another product which you have) ?

    >
    > Technically, it's a piece of cake. Feigned PAKs can easily be generated.
    > Product's image(s) can be easily hacked/patched. One could even rewrite
    > the SYS$GRANT_LICENSE service to allow it.
    >
    > Legally, it can be a pandora's box.


    No pandora's box. It is flat out illegal. Just like faking licenses
    for VMS or Windows or MS Office.

    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

  9. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    Bill Gunshannon schrieb:

    >
    > It would be illegal and I would hope there is no one here stupid enough
    > to tell how to do it in a public forum. There is no such thing as
    > "abandoned" software.


    who cares about abandoned software. Get real.


  10. PDP-11 newsgroups, was: 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. Damn, this is starting to
    > look like the PDP-11 newsgroups.
    >


    [Followups set to the PDP-11 newsgroups]

    I've no comment about VAX Document, but it's already been pointed out
    to you (with varying degrees of politeness :-)) in the PDP-11 newsgroups
    that most, and probably all, the people there are wanting to stay within
    the bounds of what's allowed by the law and Mentec's previous permission
    to use old versions of the PDP-11 operating systems under a hobbyist
    licence.

    For the record, I for one, make sure that I stay with the versions of
    the operating systems that are allowed by the Mentec hobbyist license
    and I resent any implication that I would do otherwise.

    Simon.

    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 ? :-)

    PPS: Before you bring it up, I've also seen some comments about how some
    people claim that the Mentec hobbyist license is no longer valid. What
    I've never seen is any actual statement from Mentec that actually says
    that.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

  11. PDP-11 newsgroups, was: 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. Damn, this is starting to
    > look like the PDP-11 newsgroups.
    >


    [Followups set to the PDP-11 newsgroups]

    I've no comment about VAX Document, but it's already been pointed out
    to you (with varying degrees of politeness :-)) in the PDP-11 newsgroups
    that most, and probably all, the people there are wanting to stay within
    the bounds of what's allowed by the law and Mentec's previous permission
    to use old versions of the PDP-11 operating systems under a hobbyist
    licence.

    For the record, I for one, make sure that I stay with the versions of
    the operating systems that are allowed by the Mentec hobbyist license
    and I resent any implication that I would do otherwise.

    Simon.

    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 ? :-)

    PPS: Before you bring it up, I've also seen some comments about how some
    people claim that the Mentec hobbyist license is no longer valid. What
    I've never seen is any actual statement from Mentec that actually says
    that.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

  12. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:43:06 -0700, pos wrote:

    >>> Ask the current owners of DOCUMENT - \
    >>> http://www.ttinet.com/decdocument.html

    >
    > I tried - no reply to phone or email. Has anyone else tried recently...
    >
    >

    Ditto


    --
    PL/I for OpenVMS
    www.kednos.com

  13. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    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 ?

  14. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    In article <485bc1a9$0$20523$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
    writes:
    >
    > 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 ?


    That's a rhethorical question, eh ?
    We all know the probable Fatwah of our IP Mullah B.G.
    If you apply common sense (i.e. the opposite of IP laws),
    those rights should expire after a couple of years of
    non-marketing, just as patents do.
    Maybe some Ralph Nader should pursue that issue.

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

    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?

    -- glen


  16. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    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.

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

    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?
    >


    Exactly, but at the API level.

    Given the history involved over the various Unix type operating systems
    freely implementing each other's APIs, as well as the whole SCO issue, it
    would be interesting to see if Bill regards that kind of thing as improper
    use of a vendor's property as well.

    Simon.

    PS: I must admit that I was a bit annoyed when I wrote that post; I didn't
    like Bill's implication that we were all trying to come up with ways of
    improperly using Mentec's property.

    --
    Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
    Microsoft: Bringing you 1980's technology to a 21st century world

  18. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    On 2008-06-20, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    > ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author,
    > whichever is greater.


    I was under the impression that it's currently something like 75 years
    *after the death* of the author.

    This is why Steamboat Willie has not yet lapsed into the public domain.
    --
    roger ivie
    rivie@ridgenet.net

  19. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    Michael Kraemer wrote:
    > Bill Gunshannon schrieb:
    >> It would be illegal and I would hope there is no one here stupid enough
    >> to tell how to do it in a public forum. There is no such thing as
    >> "abandoned" software.

    >
    > who cares about abandoned software. Get real.


    Anyone that does not want to get sued by HP's.

    Arne

  20. Re: LMF and abandonned products

    Roger Ivie writes:

    >On 2008-06-20, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
    >> ISTR that copyright is good for fifty years or the life of the author,
    >> whichever is greater.


    >I was under the impression that it's currently something like 75 years
    >*after the death* of the author.


    It is something like that *now* for works created after a certain date.
    They changed the copyright law. For works created before that date,
    it's a shorter period, something like 50 years from the time of creation.

    >This is why Steamboat Willie has not yet lapsed into the public domain.


    Steamboat Willie was created before the copyright law was changed, and
    would be in the public domain. (did you ever notice things like DVDs full
    of old cartoons in the $1 bin at bargain stores? The cartoons themselves
    are in the public domain so the mfgr only has to pay for the CD and
    packaging it)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast