> In article <***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "AEF" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >***@aol.com wrote:
> >> In article <***@22.214.171.124>,
> >> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
> >> >%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
> >> >news:***@individual.net
> >> >
> >> >> In article <***@126.96.36.199>,
> >> >> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> writes:
> >> >
> >> >>> Push comes to shove if HP decides to take OpenVMS off the market, at
> >> >>> the moment that doesn't seem likely. If it happens, I'll review my
> >> >>> position on the distribution of material which others hold the
> >> >>> copyright on.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? How does their taking it off the market in any way affect
> >> >> their ownership of it? It is their property to do with as they
> >> >> wish. If they wish to see it end, then so be it. It would not
> >> >> be the first OS to suffer such a fate and probably won't be the
> >> >> last.
> >This may well be the legal reality for this case. However, owners do
> >not have the complete right to do whatever they want with what they own
> >in all cases: Landmark preservation. Developers wanted to tear down
> >Grand Central Terminal. Thanks to the work of preservations, it was
> >saved. The owners had no choice in the matter. Zoning laws similarly
> >affect what you can do with your own land.
> >While the case of OSes may well be as you say, I don't think we should
> >just accept it as "right". There ARE exceptions as I mentioned above
> >and in a previous post in this thread. And I strongly feel that there
> >*should* be exceptions.
> But there aren't exceptions. This is the computing biz life.
That may be true, and I even admitted so. But exceptions exist for
other things, so it is not inconceivable that exceptions may one day be
made for the computing biz.
> >> >Bill, you're right. And I'm not thinking straight. I'm letting my
> >> >desire to see VMS live on conflict with the reality of who owns it.
> >I think destroying knowledge like this should be a crime.
> No. Doing it on purpose, maybe. What you don't seem to
> understand is that this kind of knowledge has be babysat
> constantly. No company will, nor should they, pay money
> to babysit old stuff when there is no advantage to their
> businesses to do so.
I think there are plenty of VMS enthusiasts who would welcome taking
over the care and nuturing of VMS.
> > ..It isn't,
> >legally, but I think it should be. No one lives in a vacuum. On top of
> >their owning the OS, they have sold it and supported it for many, many
> >people. I think implies some reasonable obligations to the buyers!
> We are breeding these people. This is not how life works. There
> is no obligation out of the goodness of corporate hearts. Your
> paycheck depends on this aspect of our economy.
We are breeding these people? Say what?
There is too obligation. If a corporation sells you something that is
defective, or worse, dangerous, you can sue them in court. I'm just
saying that at some level it seems unfair to pull the carpet out from
under those who use VMS. I'm not saying that it 100% supreme, but it is
not 0% either!
> >It may be legally okay for them to destroy VMS, but I strongly feel it
> >should be otherwise.
> We are not talking about an active action to destroy a set of software.
> This software will disappear if it's not tended by knowledgable
> human beings. If there is no active development going on, nobody
> will get paid to babysit old crufty bit arrangements.
> >What I'm trying to say is that ownership should not, and is often not,
> >the be all and end all.
> Yes, it is. Otherwise you have anarchy where sole result is
> to destroy anything and everything that was built and useful.
Then why couldn't the owner of Grand Central Terminal tear it down?
Then why are companies sued for defective products? Why does Exxon have
to "use" its Esso trademark to protect it? Why can't GM make sell cars
that don't have pollution controls? Why can't a developer build an
office building ON HIS OWN LAND when it is zoned as a residential area?
Copyright laws are another example. Patents expire.
There are tons of laws about restrictions on ownership. There are even
some things you are not allowed to own at all!
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.