Discussion:
VAX software available for download
(too old to reply)
t***@comcast.net
2005-06-23 17:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Hello
The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
BASIC V3.9
C V6.4
C++ V5.6
COBOL V5.7A
FMS V2.4
UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
FORTRAN V6.6
PASCAL V5.8
These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I have
cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
likely I have it.
phillip
Doc.
2005-06-23 22:12:27 UTC
Permalink
%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, ***@comcast.net wrote in
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp

Please take this down. I really don't think it is a good idea to do this.
You may have a license to use the software, but you don't have one to
distribute it. I'm well aware that HP employees turn a blind eye to
sharing amongst friends, and even just newsgroup aquaintances. However
public access is something HP may have to pursue to protect their
copyright.


Doc.
--
OpenVMS: Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.
http://www.openvms-rocks.com Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.
Jeff Cameron
2005-06-24 01:55:22 UTC
Permalink
On 6/23/05 10:23 AM, in article
***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
"***@comcast.net" <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
> BASIC V3.9
> C V6.4
> C++ V5.6
> COBOL V5.7A
> FMS V2.4
> UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
> DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
> FORTRAN V6.6
> PASCAL V5.8
> These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
> permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
> is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I have
> cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
> likely I have it.
> phillip
>

Unless you have entered into a special agreement with HP, this is in
violation of the standard software agreements, even if you have a "Right to
Copy". If you are lucky you may just get a "Cease and desist" slap, at worst
HP could really come down on you hard, and seize your equipment or worse.
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 03:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Cameron wrote:
> Unless you have entered into a special agreement with HP, this is in
> violation of the standard software agreements, even if you have a "Right to
> Copy". If you are lucky you may just get a "Cease and desist" slap, at worst
> HP could really come down on you hard, and seize your equipment or worse.

In all likelyhood, HP wouldn't notice.

If some folks have been trying to get this dossier to move forwards for
years, perhaps this is what it takes to let VMS management know that
this is an important issue and raise its priority some.

And if unofficial distribution starts, perhaps HP will see value in
allowing one "official" hobbyist distribution that has the right
controls to prevent abuse and also prevent loss of revenu.

Or perhaps we could start digging a tunnel to the basement of ZKO, take
pictures of the team who is porting VMS to the 8086 and then blackmail
HP: give us distribution for hobbyists, or we reveal the proof that
you're porting VMS to the 8086 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Opcom
2005-06-24 05:17:22 UTC
Permalink
There is a VMS dist. for VAX and Alpha hobbyists, or used to be,
which could be bought from Montagar Software. This was even one
of the answers given by to a hobbyist by "ask the wizard".
Another answer was to 'borrow' a dist from a friend. Posting
these 'warez' on the internet is however a definite no-no.

Now, is that the real 8086, or some crummy pentuim that it's
secretly being ported to? I would like to get some more use out
of those old IBM PC-XTs. Hmm.. VMS in 640K on a 16 bit machine
with a 20MB HDD. I'd pay a buck to see that!

Patrick Jankowiak



JF Mezei wrote:

> Jeff Cameron wrote:
>
>>Unless you have entered into a special agreement with HP, this is in
>>violation of the standard software agreements, even if you have a "Right to
>>Copy". If you are lucky you may just get a "Cease and desist" slap, at worst
>>HP could really come down on you hard, and seize your equipment or worse.
>
>
> In all likelyhood, HP wouldn't notice.
>
> If some folks have been trying to get this dossier to move forwards for
> years, perhaps this is what it takes to let VMS management know that
> this is an important issue and raise its priority some.
>
> And if unofficial distribution starts, perhaps HP will see value in
> allowing one "official" hobbyist distribution that has the right
> controls to prevent abuse and also prevent loss of revenu.
>
> Or perhaps we could start digging a tunnel to the basement of ZKO, take
> pictures of the team who is porting VMS to the 8086 and then blackmail
> HP: give us distribution for hobbyists, or we reveal the proof that
> you're porting VMS to the 8086 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)


--
rest begards,
Patrick Jankowiak

- reply to r e c y c l e r AT s w b e l l DOT n e t
t***@comcast.net
2005-06-24 08:01:57 UTC
Permalink
I really dont see the difference between borrowing the software from a
"friend" or downloading it from a "friend". As I recall the wiz even
made a statement to the effect "if you boss doesnot mind you borrowing
or making a copy" So if its okay to make a"illegal copy so a friend can
use it" then it should be within means to allow people to download
software if they are having problems obtaining the software. I should
say about 2 years ago I had the entire 5.5-2 CDs online and announced
it just like I did this, and I had no problems. Oh well I am going to
let the chips fall where ever and if HP tells me to stop I will or if
they want to take the equipment I even hold the door open for them.
Didier Morandi
2005-06-24 08:26:50 UTC
Permalink
***@comcast.net wrote:
> I really dont see the difference between borrowing the software from a
> "friend" or downloading it from a "friend". As I recall the wiz even
> made a statement to the effect "if you boss doesnot mind you borrowing
> or making a copy" So if its okay to make a"illegal copy so a friend can
> use it" then it should be within means to allow people to download
> software if they are having problems obtaining the software. I should
> say about 2 years ago I had the entire 5.5-2 CDs online and announced
> it just like I did this, and I had no problems. Oh well I am going to
> let the chips fall where ever and if HP tells me to stop I will or if
> they want to take the equipment I even hold the door open for them.

Tom, the difference is in the public advertising here. Everyone sends private IP
addresses to everyone in the VMS Community since ages to solve SW availability
problems, but these addresses are not posted in public fora.

Please comply with the Underground VMS rules :-)

D.
(thanks for the Cobol compiler, btw, I had an urgent need...)

--
Didier MORANDI - Expert informaticien - VMS / SAP
13 chemin du Gué, 1213 Petit-Lancy (GE) Suisse
Tél. : +33(0)6 7983 6418 ~ www.didiermorandi.com
Jeff Cameron
2005-06-24 13:53:37 UTC
Permalink
On 6/24/05 1:01 AM, in article
***@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
"***@comcast.net" <***@comcast.net> wrote:

> I really dont see the difference between borrowing the software from a
> "friend" or downloading it from a "friend". As I recall the wiz even
> made a statement to the effect "if you boss doesnot mind you borrowing
> or making a copy" So if its okay to make a"illegal copy so a friend can
> use it" then it should be within means to allow people to download
> software if they are having problems obtaining the software. I should
> say about 2 years ago I had the entire 5.5-2 CDs online and announced
> it just like I did this, and I had no problems. Oh well I am going to
> let the chips fall where ever and if HP tells me to stop I will or if
> they want to take the equipment I even hold the door open for them.
>
The problem is that you have made the software publicly available, and you
are not controlling it to make sure it only goes to "your friends". In fact
some of the software is protected against transport to some countries under
Federal law. Not only do you have HP to worry about, but Uncle Sam too!

Jeff
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 16:07:58 UTC
Permalink
"***@comcast.net" wrote:
>
> I really dont see the difference between borrowing the software from a
> "friend" or downloading it from a "friend".


However, there is a difference when you publicly advertiose freely
downloadable software without any controls. This means that commercial
customers could download this software instead of buying SPL.

Now, if the kits that the poster advertised were already available on
the hobyists CDs (a subset of what the real SPL is), then perhaps this
isn't as bad.

While the software is subject to licence checks, it is still
intellectual property of HP and HP says it can't be publicly
"broadcasted". So one would need some form of OK from HP to do this in
such a way that it woudln't hurt HP revenus.
j***@yahoo.com
2005-06-24 12:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Opcom wrote:
> There is a VMS dist. for VAX and Alpha hobbyists, or used to be,
> which could be bought from Montagar Software. This was even one
> of the answers given by to a hobbyist by "ask the wizard".
> Another answer was to 'borrow' a dist from a friend. Posting
> these 'warez' on the internet is however a definite no-no.
>

It still is available AFAIK. There have been recent posts about people
getting it within the last month or so. However, it's "stuck" at
V7.3-1 for Alpha which is quite old and no sign of any updates. I can
understand since I'm sure the volume is pretty low and I highly doubt
they make much, if not lose, money on the deal.

And while I understand the original poster's desire to help (I've
thought of doing the same myself on several occasions) I'd have to
agree with the rest that it's not the way to do it and hopefully it
won't endanger the entire Hobbyist program (which would be my biggest
fear).
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-24 12:41:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <CHMue.1422$***@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
Opcom <***@swbell.net> writes:
> There is a VMS dist. for VAX and Alpha hobbyists, or used to be,
> which could be bought from Montagar Software. This was even one
> of the answers given by to a hobbyist by "ask the wizard".
> Another answer was to 'borrow' a dist from a friend. Posting
> these 'warez' on the internet is however a definite no-no.
>
> Now, is that the real 8086, or some crummy pentuim that it's
> secretly being ported to? I would like to get some more use out
> of those old IBM PC-XTs.

Sorry to disappoint you but the XT had an 8088. Not even close to the
real 8086.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 16:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Opcom wrote:
>
> There is a VMS dist. for VAX and Alpha hobbyists, or used to be,
> which could be bought from Montagar Software. This was even one
> of the answers given by to a hobbyist by "ask the wizard".

The CD which you can buy at a very reasonable price from the fins
Montagar folks doesn't contains half of the software the hobbyists
programme entitles on to. There is a real need to provide access to the
real CDs to download specific kits.

As such, there is a need to talk to HP about methods to control such
downloads and limit it to hobbyists so that we get access to the kits
and HO is comfortable that such sustem won't be abused.

There are plenty of us willing to offer hosting/bandwidth to help with
the distribution. And from what I have been told, this issue has been
on the back burner for years, and perhaps it is time to push it forwards
and get it done.
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-24 16:39:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> writes:
>
> As such, there is a need to talk to HP about methods to control such
> downloads and limit it to hobbyists so that we get access to the kits
> and HO is comfortable that such sustem won't be abused.

I don't understand what the fuss is all about.
As I understand it, HP isn't willing to sell the CDs to
hobbyists at a decent price, so there's no revenue they
would loose anyway.
Plus that CDs w/o PAKs is useless stuff, at best one could use
them as a saucer for some legacy DEC coffee mug.

Anyway I don't understand why Compaq/HP haven't ended this
braindead DEC PAK hell, where you have to license every single piece
of software just to be able to use the base OS.
Look at IBM, HP (pre-merger), Sun etc, they are happily still in
business although they let their OSes run (technically) license-free
on any hardware which can digest the respective CDs.


OTOH it's certainly not a wise move by the OP to advertise pirate copies,
because that would give HP excuses.
The "normal" discreet way would have been to tell people some
"look what I've got at home, send me an eMail if want to know more".
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-24 16:53:00 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9hd0s$tkv$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <***@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> writes:
>>
>> As such, there is a need to talk to HP about methods to control such
>> downloads and limit it to hobbyists so that we get access to the kits
>> and HO is comfortable that such sustem won't be abused.
>
> I don't understand what the fuss is all about.
> As I understand it, HP isn't willing to sell the CDs to
> hobbyists at a decent price,

Let's keep this in perspective. They sell their IP at a decent
price. The fact that you think it is too much is irrelevant.
It's their IP and they fvet to set the price. End of story.

> so there's no revenue they
> would loose anyway.

Of course there is revenue to loose as you have no idea who is
downloading it or for what purpose.

Your argument is like saying stealing satellite or cable TV is
OK cause there's nothing on but garbage anyway. The companies
providing the copntent (and the courts) don't agree.

Or, you have the music sharing programs. You could argue that no
revenue is lost cause the people doing the exchange only do it
cause it's free and wouldn't buy the music if that was the only
way. See the preceding paragraph.

> Plus that CDs w/o PAKs is useless stuff, at best one could use
> them as a saucer for some legacy DEC coffee mug.

Not true. People who pay for PAK's still have to buy the distribution.
But not if someone is giving it away. Thus, the loss of revenue.

>
> Anyway I don't understand why Compaq/HP haven't ended this
> braindead DEC PAK hell, where you have to license every single piece
> of software just to be able to use the base OS.

You don't. There is only one PAK needed for the base OS.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-24 17:36:14 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, ***@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> In article <d9hd0s$tkv$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
> ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
>
> >
> > Anyway I don't understand why Compaq/HP haven't ended this
> > braindead DEC PAK hell, where you have to license every single piece
> > of software just to be able to use the base OS.
>
> You don't. There is only one PAK needed for the base OS.
>

But only if you follow DECs narrow definition what a base OS is.
Just some comparisons:

If I buy an IBM box (fresh or at eBay) I can get a set of AIX CDs
(comes with the new machine or at eBay), I can install and use all of it
with no restriction, including TCP/IP, CDE, JFS, LVM, multi-user login etc.
Takes me about 1 hour or less and I'm up and running.
Now if I want support, native compilers, additional middleware,
that's a different story.

Let's take a look at DEC's first attempt to Unix: Ultrix.
I can at least run the OS, including TCP/IP, DECwindows, and maybe 2 users
(I think).

Enters OSF/1 aka DEC Unix aka Tru64, which is supposed to be "superior".
I can run the OS, but only as root. For others I need a license.
For parts of the OS (AdvFS and stuff I guess) I need another license.

Enters VMS. I need a license for the OS, for TCP/IP, for the GUI,
for every single piece which come integrated and license-free with the other
OSes.

Don't tell me it's for economical reasons.
PAK-free AIX is alive and well, whereas PAK-plagued DEC OSes are
pretty much dead.
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 17:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Michael Kraemer wrote:
> Don't tell me it's for economical reasons.
> PAK-free AIX is alive and well, whereas PAK-plagued DEC OSes are
> pretty much dead.


I disagree. The concept of PAKs is not all evil. Consider most personal
computer commercial grade software. They have the "PAK" concept too.
When you first start the application, it asks you to enter a serial
number, some personal info and that gets registered with the software
vendor over the internet. (in the past via 800 number with dialup
connection).

The concept of a PAK is not bad per say. By the owner of VMS could
simplify things much more with fasrt easier ways to purchase a PAK
on-line with the PAK emailed to you, thus greatly reducing costs to HP.
And ISVs wouldn't be stuck with all teh paperwork to transfer PAks from
their name to that of the customer etc etc.

And if PAKs mean that it is much easier for VMS management to agree to
on-line software distribution in a controlled ffashion, then it is to
the advantage of hobbyists.
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-24 18:15:58 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.
com> writes:
> Michael Kraemer wrote:
> > Don't tell me it's for economical reasons.
> > PAK-free AIX is alive and well, whereas PAK-plagued DEC OSes are
> > pretty much dead.
>
>
> I disagree. The concept of PAKs is not all evil. Consider most personal
> computer commercial grade software. They have the "PAK" concept too.
> When you first start the application, it asks you to enter a serial
> number, some personal info and that gets registered with the software
> vendor over the internet. (in the past via 800 number with dialup
> connection).

I'm aware of that, but those "PAK"s are at first "personalized"
and not restricted to a specific machine.
At second
there's almost always only 1 "PAK" for everything.
The equivalent to the VMS PAK hell for a PC drawing program
would be to acquire 3 different licenses to be able to use
the red, green, and blue colour, respectively.


> The concept of a PAK is not bad per say. By the owner of VMS could
> simplify things much more with fasrt easier ways to purchase a PAK
> on-line with the PAK emailed to you, thus greatly reducing costs to HP.
> And ISVs wouldn't be stuck with all teh paperwork to transfer PAks from
> their name to that of the customer etc etc.

If PAKs are considered necessary at all, then a single PAK for a
single product, which means for VMS that everything a "modern" OS
comes with these days should be included: network, GUI, LVM, multi-user.

But still this doesn't answer the question why AIX, Solaris, HP-UX etc
can happily live w/o PAKs whereas the DEC-legacy OSes can't.
Those companies don't seem to care if their media are sold on eBay
and run by a handful of people at home. And rightfully so,
since these people hardly endanger their business, and being
generous can OTOH be good advertising.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-24 18:26:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9hiku$ve9$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <***@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.
> com> writes:
>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>> > Don't tell me it's for economical reasons.
>> > PAK-free AIX is alive and well, whereas PAK-plagued DEC OSes are
>> > pretty much dead.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. The concept of PAKs is not all evil. Consider most personal
>> computer commercial grade software. They have the "PAK" concept too.
>> When you first start the application, it asks you to enter a serial
>> number, some personal info and that gets registered with the software
>> vendor over the internet. (in the past via 800 number with dialup
>> connection).
>
> I'm aware of that, but those "PAK"s are at first "personalized"
> and not restricted to a specific machine.
> At second
> there's almost always only 1 "PAK" for everything.
> The equivalent to the VMS PAK hell for a PC drawing program
> would be to acquire 3 different licenses to be able to use
> the red, green, and blue colour, respectively.
>
>
>> The concept of a PAK is not bad per say. By the owner of VMS could
>> simplify things much more with fasrt easier ways to purchase a PAK
>> on-line with the PAK emailed to you, thus greatly reducing costs to HP.
>> And ISVs wouldn't be stuck with all teh paperwork to transfer PAks from
>> their name to that of the customer etc etc.
>
> If PAKs are considered necessary at all, then a single PAK for a
> single product, which means for VMS that everything a "modern" OS
> comes with these days should be included: network, GUI, LVM, multi-user.
>
> But still this doesn't answer the question why AIX, Solaris, HP-UX etc
> can happily live w/o PAKs whereas the DEC-legacy OSes can't.
> Those companies don't seem to care if their media are sold on eBay
> and run by a handful of people at home. And rightfully so,
> since these people hardly endanger their business, and being
> generous can OTOH be good advertising.

Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
HP's IP.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-24 18:50:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, ***@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> In article <d9hiku$ve9$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
> ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> >
> > But still this doesn't answer the question why AIX, Solaris, HP-UX etc
> > can happily live w/o PAKs whereas the DEC-legacy OSes can't.
> > Those companies don't seem to care if their media are sold on eBay
> > and run by a handful of people at home. And rightfully so,
> > since these people hardly endanger their business, and being
> > generous can OTOH be good advertising.
>
> Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
> But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
> it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
> HP's IP.

In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?

Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
that would be theft, of course.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-24 19:16:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <***@individual.net>, ***@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>> In article <d9hiku$ve9$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
>> ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
>> >
>> > But still this doesn't answer the question why AIX, Solaris, HP-UX etc
>> > can happily live w/o PAKs whereas the DEC-legacy OSes can't.
>> > Those companies don't seem to care if their media are sold on eBay
>> > and run by a handful of people at home. And rightfully so,
>> > since these people hardly endanger their business, and being
>> > generous can OTOH be good advertising.
>>
>> Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
>> But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
>> it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
>> HP's IP.
>
> In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
> I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
> somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
> If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>
> Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
> that would be theft, of course.

We were talking about putting up a public ftp site with HP's IP
on it. That is stealing their IP. Anythng beyond what HP (the
owner of the IP) allows is theft.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 20:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> We were talking about putting up a public ftp site with HP's IP
> on it. That is stealing their IP. Anythng beyond what HP (the
> owner of the IP) allows is theft.

I think this is a matter of semantics. You aren't stealing anything. You
are providing a service which competes with an HP service (service being
making copies of software and shipping it to you).

The actual IP is still protected by the licencing system (PAK).

Perhaps what is needed here is a reverse informal EBAY.

Someone posts a need, and whoever has the requested media then sees this
request and can then personally answer it, after which the requestor
closes the bid on the request system. The actual exchange remains
informal and between two individuals.

On the other hand, that smells a lot like peer to peer except that the
suppliers of kits don't advertise what they have. they only respond to
individual requests.
Lurker
2005-06-25 08:09:17 UTC
Permalink
"JF Mezei" <***@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:***@teksavvy.com...
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > We were talking about putting up a public ftp site with HP's IP
> > on it. That is stealing their IP. Anythng beyond what HP (the
> > owner of the IP) allows is theft.
>
> I think this is a matter of semantics. You aren't stealing anything.

Well, sorry, you are if you are doing that.

> You are providing a service which competes with an HP service (service
being
> making copies of software and shipping it to you).

It is not yours to make copies of though. You might as well
argue that a fence is providing a service which competes
with the regular shop-owner for the goods the thiefs stole from.

> Someone posts a need, and whoever has the requested media then sees this
> request and can then personally answer it

Or, perhaps, know where to go and steal it. Any difference
to your argument?

> The actual exchange remains
> informal and between two individuals.

Reminds me of the old definition of
the "Gentlemen's agreement" - that's
the one where neither party cares to put
anything in writing...
Lurker
2005-06-25 07:20:10 UTC
Permalink
"Michael Kraemer" <***@gsi.de> wrote in message
news:d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de...

> In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
> I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
> somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
> If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?

No, not unless you replicate it in a thousands (or millions)
copies and make them freely available on the net.

Even excluding the actual hardware (which might
be a bit tricky given the current state of technolodgy),
do you imagine that GM would look kindly on anyone
who distributes software for their engine controllers
(including critical parts like EFI) without their prior
written agreement and some hefty royalties to come
with that?

> Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
> that would be theft, of course.

That's exactly what it amounts to I'm afraid.
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 15:00:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <Nx7ve.10136$***@news.xtra.co.nz>, "Lurker" <***@nothing.com> writes:
> "Michael Kraemer" <***@gsi.de> wrote in message
> news:d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de...
>
> > In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
> > I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
> > somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
> > If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>
> No, not unless you replicate it in a thousands (or millions)
> copies and make them freely available on the net.
>
> Even excluding the actual hardware (which might
> be a bit tricky given the current state of technolodgy),
> do you imagine that GM would look kindly on anyone
> who distributes software for their engine controllers
> (including critical parts like EFI) without their prior
> written agreement and some hefty royalties to come
> with that?

I thought part of the discussion referred to
giving away/sharing any kind of software products,
even selling used ones (no replication involved).
Some (e.g. Bill) took a very IP legalistic point of
view, which I don't subscribe.

>
> > Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
> > that would be theft, of course.
>
> That's exactly what it amounts to I'm afraid.

Well, yes and no. "No" because the hobbyist stuff is free
anyway, so in some sense the OP even saves HP distribution costs.
Robert Deininger
2005-06-25 10:45:32 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de
(Michael Kraemer) wrote:


>In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
>I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
>somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
>If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>
>Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
>that would be theft, of course.

Because the fellow you bought the system from didn't own the software. He
owned a license to use it under specific terms. Those terms typically do
no include the right to transfer the license to a 3rd party (you), or to
extend the license to multiple parties.

HP owns the software. To use it legally, you need HP's permission, in the
form of a license.
Dave Froble
2005-06-25 17:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Robert Deininger wrote:
> In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de
> (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>
>
>
>>In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
>>I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
>>somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
>>If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>>
>>Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
>>that would be theft, of course.
>
>
> Because the fellow you bought the system from didn't own the software. He
> owned a license to use it under specific terms. Those terms typically do
> no include the right to transfer the license to a 3rd party (you), or to
> extend the license to multiple parties.
>
> HP owns the software. To use it legally, you need HP's permission, in the
> form of a license.

Well now you've muddied the waters. The issue was making the software
available for download. This is contrary to what's printed on every CD.
The goal is to make it available to hobbyist who do have licenses.

The hobbyist program seems to need a method of obtaining software that
is in line with the cost of the licenses/PAKs, which the ConDist (or
whatever it's called this week) doesn't.

Can you state that it's Ok with HP if the software is provided to
hobbyist via download over the Internet?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 15:19:18 UTC
Permalink
In article <rdeininger-***@user-105n8cn.dialup.mindspring.com>, ***@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) writes:
> In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de
> (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>
>
> >In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
> >I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
> >somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
> >If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
> >
> >Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
> >that would be theft, of course.
>
> Because the fellow you bought the system from didn't own the software. He
> owned a license to use it under specific terms. Those terms typically do
> no include the right to transfer the license to a 3rd party (you), or to
> extend the license to multiple parties.
>
> HP owns the software. To use it legally, you need HP's permission, in the
> form of a license.

And all this is exactly what only IP lawyers and brainwashed politicians
find "legal" or "natural". If I buy a product, e.g. a car, it is
mine and I can do withit whatever I like (except pirating of course).
Volkswagen or GM or BMW has no say anymore, and rightfully so.
Why should a software product be treated differently ?
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-27 15:24:11 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9p5dm$fvn$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
***@biors6a.gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <rdeininger-***@user-105n8cn.dialup.mindspring.com>, ***@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) writes:
>> In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de
>> (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
>> >I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
>> >somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
>> >If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>> >
>> >Now if I replicated the stuff and sold it for own account,
>> >that would be theft, of course.
>>
>> Because the fellow you bought the system from didn't own the software. He
>> owned a license to use it under specific terms. Those terms typically do
>> no include the right to transfer the license to a 3rd party (you), or to
>> extend the license to multiple parties.
>>
>> HP owns the software. To use it legally, you need HP's permission, in the
>> form of a license.
>
> And all this is exactly what only IP lawyers and brainwashed politicians
> find "legal" or "natural". If I buy a product, e.g. a car, it is
> mine and I can do withit whatever I like (except pirating of course).
> Volkswagen or GM or BMW has no say anymore, and rightfully so.
> Why should a software product be treated differently ?

Because you didn't "buy" the software, you licensed it. And as for the
car industry, they, too, have latched onto this model. It's called a
lease. You pay just as much but you end out not only not owning the car
but usually with a large closing fee that has to be paid at the end of
the lease period. (and then we have the fun semantics like "no down
payment" but you have a $5000 up front fee!!) And they even get to tell
you how far your allowed to drive the car befire incurring even more
additional costs. It just took the car industry a little longer to figure
out how to do it.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 17:31:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, ***@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> In article <d9p5dm$fvn$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
> ***@biors6a.gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> >
> > And all this is exactly what only IP lawyers and brainwashed politicians
> > find "legal" or "natural". If I buy a product, e.g. a car, it is
> > mine and I can do withit whatever I like (except pirating of course).
> > Volkswagen or GM or BMW has no say anymore, and rightfully so.
> > Why should a software product be treated differently ?
>
> Because you didn't "buy" the software, you licensed it. And as for the
> car industry, they, too, have latched onto this model. It's called a
> lease.

OK, but as a car customer I have the choice to lease or buy.
And my choice does not depend on legal issues but on
financial ones or on my personal situation.
With their restrictive "licensing" schemes software makers
do not offer this choice. And if this is the current law,
it should be changed, IMHO. (OK, I'm aware IP lobbyists would fight
that until the bitter end)
*No* restrictions on the use of software, except pirating of course.
Doc.
2005-06-24 19:50:57 UTC
Permalink
%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
news:***@individual.net

<snip>

> Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
> But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
> it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
> HP's IP.

This is exactly the point I tried to make in the first place. None of the
people involved in the "debate" have the right to decide on how
distribution is handled, so their "suggestions" have very little value.

There are constraints as a result of what is considered "interpersonal"
sharing, live within them and HP will ignore you completely. Live outside
them, and you are inviting prosecution.


Doc.
--
OpenVMS: Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.
http://www.openvms-rocks.com Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.
j***@aol.com
2005-06-25 12:19:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
"Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
>%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
>news:***@individual.net
>
><snip>
>
>> Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
>> But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
>> it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
>> HP's IP.
>
>This is exactly the point I tried to make in the first place. None of the
>people involved in the "debate" have the right to decide on how
>distribution is handled, so their "suggestions" have very little value.
>
>There are constraints as a result of what is considered "interpersonal"
>sharing, live within them and HP will ignore you completely. Live outside
>them, and you are inviting prosecution.

It's worse than that. If HP notices and objects, the fucking
idiot has queered it for everybody else, past, present, and
especially future.

Nobody will be able to learn how a well-mannered OS is supposed
to act.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-25 16:03:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <XZednaH9mMkE9yDfRVn-***@rcn.net>,
***@aol.com writes:
> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
>>%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
>>news:***@individual.net
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
>>> But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
>>> it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
>>> HP's IP.
>>
>>This is exactly the point I tried to make in the first place. None of the
>>people involved in the "debate" have the right to decide on how
>>distribution is handled, so their "suggestions" have very little value.
>>
>>There are constraints as a result of what is considered "interpersonal"
>>sharing, live within them and HP will ignore you completely. Live outside
>>them, and you are inviting prosecution.
>
> It's worse than that. If HP notices and objects, the fucking
> idiot has queered it for everybody else, past, present, and
> especially future.
>
> Nobody will be able to learn how a well-mannered OS is supposed
> to act.
>

Which is why I used the PDP-11 example. Very much because of hobbyist's
cavalier attitude regarding Mentec's IP the only hobbyist's who can run
RSTS, RSX or RT-11 are those who's moral code allows them to ignore the
IP Rights of others. Sadly, this punishes the innocent while having no
effect on the guilty, but I can certainly see Mentec's point of view.
It would be a real shame if the actions of a few were to cause HP to
affect the same attitude.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
j***@aol.com
2005-06-26 07:58:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>,
***@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>In article <XZednaH9mMkE9yDfRVn-***@rcn.net>,
> ***@aol.com writes:
>> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
>> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
>>>%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
>>>news:***@individual.net
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
>>>> But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
>>>> it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
>>>> HP's IP.
>>>
>>>This is exactly the point I tried to make in the first place. None of
the
>>>people involved in the "debate" have the right to decide on how
>>>distribution is handled, so their "suggestions" have very little value.
>>>
>>>There are constraints as a result of what is considered "interpersonal"
>>>sharing, live within them and HP will ignore you completely. Live
outside
>>>them, and you are inviting prosecution.
>>
>> It's worse than that. If HP notices and objects, the fucking
>> idiot has queered it for everybody else, past, present, and
>> especially future.
>>
>> Nobody will be able to learn how a well-mannered OS is supposed
>> to act.
>>
>
>Which is why I used the PDP-11 example. Very much because of hobbyist's
>cavalier attitude regarding Mentec's IP the only hobbyist's who can run
>RSTS, RSX or RT-11 are those who's moral code allows them to ignore the
>IP Rights of others. Sadly, this punishes the innocent while having no
>effect on the guilty, but I can certainly see Mentec's point of view.

I understand all points of view because I happened to work in
the middle of it all.

>It would be a real shame if the actions of a few were to cause HP to
>affect the same attitude.

HP will have the same attitude since they have no indication
of being in the OS biz long term. One of the problems of
not making sources available to the kiddies is you shut down
the most important method of training your future customers.
It's much cheaper and more efficient to have kids learn
on their own and be ramped up by the time you want to
sell to them or hire them.

OTOH, acquiring the money to pay your developers is a basic
requirement. DEC used to do this by selling hardware.
Software-only vendors have a more difficult time with this.
Software distributors never have to deal with this problem
because they're only doing the actions for short term gain.

I never figured out how to solve this funding problem.

There is also the human psychological aspect where having
an exclusive knowledge is power. This is why people loved
TOPS-10. Many people at one site could own a piece of knowledge
and be important to the others without a degradation of
the machine's user thruput. This ownership of knowledge has
a lot to do with the intellectual propery stuff (in addition
to trying to make money with it).


/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
JF Mezei
2005-06-25 16:22:09 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com wrote:
> It's worse than that. If HP notices and objects, the fucking
> idiot has queered it for everybody else, past, present, and
> especially future.

But this can also be seen as an opportunity to advance the cause.

It is important to signal to HP that hobbysists needs access to media to
take advantage of all the licences that are available under the
programme. If there are multiple attempts to "irritate" HP with public
download sites, and then the real Hobbyist people come to HP and say
"look, you know and I know that there is a need for this, I propose a
controlled fahsion to distribute media only to hobbyists, etc etc this
may push HP to make a positive decision.

HP would definitely object if the hobbyist programme's PAK generator
were to become public. But they don't object to it being used in a
controlled fashion like it is now.

I think that it should be possible to use the same logic with media
distribution. If it is done in a controlled manner, it should mitigate
the fears HP might have of loss of revenus since it would be accessed
only by hobbyists.

And one could have a web page forcing the user to agree to terms such as
redistribution or making kits publically available


The question really is: how do we seize on this event to signal to HP
that it should agree to some controlled downloads ? I've been told by
the bobbysist folks in texas that technology is not a problem.

It is clear to me that the hobbysts folks have tried and may have made
some headway, but clearly, after years, it hasn't move enough. Perhaps
there needs to be a push from users to get HP to start moving on this.
Dave Froble
2005-06-25 17:23:02 UTC
Permalink
JF Mezei wrote:
> ***@aol.com wrote:
>
>>It's worse than that. If HP notices and objects, the fucking
>>idiot has queered it for everybody else, past, present, and
>>especially future.
>
>
> But this can also be seen as an opportunity to advance the cause.
>
> It is important to signal to HP that hobbysists needs access to media to
> take advantage of all the licences that are available under the
> programme. If there are multiple attempts to "irritate" HP with public
> download sites, and then the real Hobbyist people come to HP and say
> "look, you know and I know that there is a need for this, I propose a
> controlled fahsion to distribute media only to hobbyists, etc etc this
> may push HP to make a positive decision.

Stealing their property doesn't seem the proper method to achieve that
goal. Most would think such an act would be counter-productive.

Irritation is similar. When a fly irritates you, do you feed it, or
swat it?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
j***@aol.com
2005-06-26 08:10:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>***@aol.com wrote:
>> It's worse than that. If HP notices and objects, the fucking
>> idiot has queered it for everybody else, past, present, and
>> especially future.
>
>But this can also be seen as an opportunity to advance the cause.

No, it can't. The action is guaranteed to self-destruction.
This is a similar attitude that anarchists have: if the
mean, nasty infrastructure is destroyed, they will get the
message and indulge my flights of fancy.
>
>It is important to signal to HP that hobbysists needs access to media to
>take advantage of all the licences that are available under the
>programme.

Sigh! You are making an assumption that HP gives a rat's ass
about hobbyists. I have seen nothing that indicates this; AAMOF
I saw the exact opposite with Carlybaby's stupidities. What makes
you think that the folklore that she established has disappeared?
I'll guarantee you that is hasn't. It takes about two years for
top management shit to trickle down to the people who do the
real work.

The only people who do care passionately are those who did the
real work; if you haven't noticed Carlybaby was shipping the
work out.

> .. If there are multiple attempts to "irritate" HP with public
>download sites, and then the real Hobbyist people come to HP and say
>"look, you know and I know that there is a need for this, I propose a
>controlled fahsion to distribute media only to hobbyists, etc etc this
>may push HP to make a positive decision.

You've missed a very important step. You hobbyists need to
train HP (who has an inkjet mentality) that OS management is
prestigious and a completely foolproof method of distributing
goodwill.

>
>HP would definitely object if the hobbyist programme's PAK generator
>were to become public. But they don't object to it being used in a
>controlled fashion like it is now.

They don't object because it doesn't cost them any money and
probably doesn't cross the corporate table in a meeting.
>
>I think that it should be possible to use the same logic with media
>distribution. If it is done in a controlled manner, it should mitigate
>the fears HP might have of loss of revenus since it would be accessed
>only by hobbyists.
>
>And one could have a web page forcing the user to agree to terms such as
>redistribution or making kits publically available

This costs money. You've just spec'ed out a reason to chop a minor
expenditure.

>
>
>The question really is: how do we seize on this event to signal to HP
>that it should agree to some controlled downloads ? I've been told by
>the bobbysist folks in texas that technology is not a problem.

I told you how up^there. My assumption is that HP may still remember
that goodwill is a valuable asset.
>
>It is clear to me that the hobbysts folks have tried and may have made
>some headway, but clearly, after years, it hasn't move enough. Perhaps
>there needs to be a push from users to get HP to start moving on this.

If you make it a corporate level problem, it will be solved with
a corporate level sledge hammer. This action has already shuffled
the problem into the lawyer's domain. This is not, ever, a way
to get anything done. (I don't think this has changed in business.)

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
JF Mezei
2005-06-26 17:09:53 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com wrote:
> Sigh! You are making an assumption that HP gives a rat's ass
> about hobbyists. I have seen nothing that indicates this;

The problem is that HP *may* be making the assumption that the hobbyist
CD contains all of the SPL and thus the hobbyist programme is 100%
comprehensive. That is not the case, the hobbyist CD is only a very
small subset of what the hobbyist programme allows. And this is why it
is important for us, the hobbyists to tell HP that there is a need for
this to improve.

Consider that one of the persons deeply involved with the hobbyist
programme wrote something here a few days ago indicating he thought that
the CD contained all the software you needed.

But I also know that another person involved with the hobbyist programme
knows about the need to have the full SPL available. But since this has
been going on for a few years with very very slow progress, there
perhaps needs to be a catalyst to get things moving.


If that "warez" story gets to HP, HP may start to be asking question on
why hobbysts would be doing this, at which point the hobbyist folks can
step in with "remember, we'Mve been trelling you for years that we need
to make distribution of media possible to hobbyists ?".


> You've missed a very important step. You hobbyists need to
> train HP (who has an inkjet mentality) that OS management is
> prestigious and a completely foolproof method of distributing
> goodwill.

My gut tells me that the hobbyist programme is not "HP" but simply VMS
management and doesn't really go any higher. It is discretionary at that
level and HP corporate probably doesn't know about it.

> >And one could have a web page forcing the user to agree to terms such as
> >redistribution or making kits publically available
>
> This costs money. You've just spec'ed out a reason to chop a minor
> expenditure.


You don't understand. The hobbysist programme is run by the very kind
folks at Montagar who are volunteers in the true DECUS sense of the
word. But in order for them to do this, they had to setup
checks/controls which met VMS management approval. (such as yearly
renewall, requires a decus membership number checked against the
country's DECUS group etc etc).

If you want to expand this to provide downloadable kits, you need to
show HP that you can have similar controls which will meet with VMS
management approval.
j***@aol.com
2005-06-27 07:38:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@vaxination.ca>,
JF Mezei <***@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>***@aol.com wrote:
>> Sigh! You are making an assumption that HP gives a rat's ass
>> about hobbyists. I have seen nothing that indicates this;
>
>The problem is that HP *may* be making the assumption that the hobbyist
>CD contains all of the SPL and thus the hobbyist programme is 100%
>comprehensive. That is not the case, the hobbyist CD is only a very
>small subset of what the hobbyist programme allows. And this is why it
>is important for us, the hobbyists to tell HP that there is a need for
>this to improve.

And this costs money known as funding which gets extreeeemmeely
expensive.
>
>Consider that one of the persons deeply involved with the hobbyist
>programme wrote something here a few days ago indicating he thought that
>the CD contained all the software you needed.

That depends on what "needed" means. To get a system up and running?
Probably. To do all flavors of computing that VMS supports, I would
be safe in guessing no.

>
>But I also know that another person involved with the hobbyist programme
>knows about the need to have the full SPL available. But since this has
>been going on for a few years with very very slow progress, there
>perhaps needs to be a catalyst to get things moving.

The catalyst has been set to put everything back into the
corporate box. What this idiot did will ensure that if
the problem gets to corporate.
>
>
>If that "warez" story gets to HP, HP may start to be asking question on
>why hobbysts would be doing this, at which point the hobbyist folks can
>step in with "remember, we'Mve been trelling you for years that we need
>to make distribution of media possible to hobbyists ?".
>
>
>> You've missed a very important step. You hobbyists need to
>> train HP (who has an inkjet mentality) that OS management is
>> prestigious and a completely foolproof method of distributing
>> goodwill.
>
>My gut tells me that the hobbyist programme is not "HP" but simply VMS
>management and doesn't really go any higher.

EXACTLY!!! That's precisely where you, as a hobbyist, should
want to keep it.

> .. It is discretionary at that
>level and HP corporate probably doesn't know about it.

AFAICT, corporate doesn't even want to know about OSes and
all the work (a.k.a. funding) about keeping the infrastructure
for development, maintenance and packaging; this was the attitude
of Carlybaby who didn't give a shit about any of the personnel
she acquired with her buyout deals. One would hope that her
replacements will try to correct this. Time will tell.

>
>> >And one could have a web page forcing the user to agree to terms such
as
>> >redistribution or making kits publically available
>>
>> This costs money. You've just spec'ed out a reason to chop a minor
>> expenditure.
>
>
>You don't understand.

Perhaps, I don't understand. I do know about how knowledge gets
lost.

> ..The hobbysist programme is run by the very kind
>folks at Montagar who are volunteers in the true DECUS sense of the
>word. But in order for them to do this, they had to setup
>checks/controls which met VMS management approval. (such as yearly
>renewall, requires a decus membership number checked against the
>country's DECUS group etc etc).
>
>If you want to expand this to provide downloadable kits, you need to
>show HP that you can have similar controls which will meet with VMS
>management approval.

It looks like there is a bug. The dotcom generation has not been
trained in the consequences of stealing. Read some of the long
discussions on game newsgroups about this subject. There are
a growing number of people who have absolutely no idea how
hard/software products are made.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-27 14:46:48 UTC
Permalink
In article <W-CdnUCahLNZViLfRVn-***@rcn.net>,
***@aol.com writes:
>
> It looks like there is a bug. The dotcom generation has not been
> trained in the consequences of stealing. Read some of the long
> discussions on game newsgroups about this subject. There are
> a growing number of people who have absolutely no idea how
> hard/software products are made.

You can lay a major part of the blame for this at the feet of
one of todays computer subculture heroes, Richard Stallman.
"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a
program I must share it with other people who like it.
Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them,
making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse
to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot
in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a
software license agreement."

From this we got the Gnu Public Virus and the idea that there is
no inherent value in programs and so they can be given away at
will. All this because he was too stupid to know what the term
"Public Domain" meant when he first gave away the code to his early
version of EMACS.

If you draw the conclusion fromt he above that I don't think much of
Stallman, you would be right. I feel he has done more to damage the
software world than anyone else. (Oh yeah, and he didn't invent the
idea of "software sharing" mod.sources was created in 1983 and that
was just to formalize what had already been going on.)

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Marcin 'Rambo' Roguski
2005-06-27 15:02:37 UTC
Permalink
[...]
> From this we got the Gnu Public Virus and the idea that there is
> no inherent value in programs and so they can be given away at
> will.
[...]

Allow me to put my two cents here. I disagree, I neither tolerate
software piracy (hay, I don't even have Windows, Office, Photoshop
etc...) on my PC computers. But GNU GPL did actually made a
difference, and software piracy existed long before Stallman, Torvalds,
Cox or <insert your favourite target here>. And the idea of GPL is not
that software can be "given away at will", but that anyone can develop
software based on your ideas (providing that he will give you credit and
grant rights for others to do the same with his ideas)...

Rambo
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-27 15:43:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@yahoo.com>,
Marcin 'Rambo' Roguski <***@yahoo.com> writes:
> [...]
>> From this we got the Gnu Public Virus and the idea that there is
>> no inherent value in programs and so they can be given away at
>> will.
> [...]
>
> Allow me to put my two cents here. I disagree, I neither tolerate
> software piracy (hay, I don't even have Windows, Office, Photoshop
> etc...) on my PC computers. But GNU GPL did actually made a
> difference,

How? As I pointed out we shared software before the Gnu Public Virus
just fine. GNU has actually hurt the system as there are many people
with great skills who will not touch GNU Software with a ten-foot pole
who would provide their services if there was no such restriction (such
as the BSD Style license). Add to that the fact that it doesn't always
accomplish what people think (I can point out software derived from
GNU that in the form it is available, which meets the letter of the GPL,
is totally useless form the standpoint of future development).

> and software piracy existed long before Stallman, Torvalds,
> Cox or <insert your favourite target here>.

Sure it did. And guess what, the pirates knew they were pirates and
were even proud of the fact. Today, we have a much greater number who
don't think stealing software is piracy. We have invented terms like
"orphanware" in order to rationalize our actions so we can steal but not
consider ourselves as thieves. That I blame on people like Stallman
who created the idea that computer programs (as IP) have no intrinsic
value and must be considered as belonging to the people (hmmmm.. where
have we heard this rhetoric before?)

> And the idea of GPL is not
> that software can be "given away at will",

That's not the mindset it has engendered. Looka t what Stallman said,
"if I like a program I must share it with other people"
give anything you like to all your friends.
"Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them"
selling software is somehow evil.
"For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist
such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had
gone too far:"

An interesting concept as, to the best of my knowledge, everything that
came out of AI.mit.edu was freely available. I used a lot of stuff that
came from there and the other labs at MIT.


> but that anyone can develop
> software based on your ideas (providing that he will give you credit and
> grant rights for others to do the same with his ideas)...

And yet, the same still goes on with other much less restrictive
licenses (such as the BSD style license) as well. Go figure.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Bob Koehler
2005-06-24 21:26:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
>
> In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
> I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
> somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
> If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?

The same way you steal from Stevie Wonder when you give away copies
of his music. HP gets money for copies of the software and you're
allowing people to get it for free.

So HP has to pay people for making the software, but doesn't get
income to cover those paychecks.
Dave Weatherall
2005-06-26 05:32:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:26:59 UTC,
***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:

> In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> >
> > In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
> > I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
> > somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
> > If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>
> The same way you steal from Stevie Wonder when you give away copies
> of his music. HP gets money for copies of the software and you're
> allowing people to get it for free.
>
> So HP has to pay people for making the software, but doesn't get
> income to cover those paychecks.

While I don't disagree with the dissent about having this _VAX_ stuff
being put up as warez , particularly how it could be used to damage
the hobbyist program, My own first thought was 'that's not wise'. OTOH
I seriously question the size of the market for the products being put
up and thus the putative loss of income for HP. The word nil comes to
mind.

--
Cheers - Dave W.
j***@aol.com
2005-06-26 08:13:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <DTiotGxQ0bj6-pn2-***@dave2_os2.home.ours>,
"Dave Weatherall" <djw-***@nospam.nohow> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:26:59 UTC,
>***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:
>
>> In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de
(Michael Kraemer) writes:
>> >
>> > In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
>> > I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
>> > somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
>> > If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>>
>> The same way you steal from Stevie Wonder when you give away copies
>> of his music. HP gets money for copies of the software and you're
>> allowing people to get it for free.
>>
>> So HP has to pay people for making the software, but doesn't get
>> income to cover those paychecks.
>
>While I don't disagree with the dissent about having this _VAX_ stuff
>being put up as warez , particularly how it could be used to damage
>the hobbyist program, My own first thought was 'that's not wise'. OTOH
>I seriously question the size of the market for the products being put
>up and thus the putative loss of income for HP. The word nil comes to
>mind.

Think outside the box. I haven't been in the biz for almost
20 years and have not kept up with the laws, but I can
think of several. I'd rather not bare them here.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Lurker
2005-06-25 07:45:59 UTC
Permalink
"Bill Gunshannon" <***@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...

> In article <d9hiku$ve9$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
> ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:

> > But still this doesn't answer the question why AIX, Solaris, HP-UX etc
> > can happily live w/o PAKs whereas the DEC-legacy OSes can't.
> > Those companies don't seem to care if their media are sold on eBay
> > and run by a handful of people at home. And rightfully so,
> > since these people hardly endanger their business, and being
> > generous can OTOH be good advertising.
>
> Well, when you own VMS you will be free to use such an arrangement.
> But right now, it belongs to HP and they, too, are free to license
> it any way they wish. None of this gives anyone the right to steal
> HP's IP.

I'm afraid I have to second the above opinion. Never mind if do or do not
like
that decision (I don't) but it *is* in fact their property and they get to
do want
they want with it (subject to legal regulations of course). Note that HP
actually
*bought* the rights to VMS. So, if you want to change the course, just raise
enough capital, make them a good enough and they probably won't object.
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 14:27:36 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@eisner.encompasserve.org>, ***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> >
> > In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
> > I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
> > somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
> > If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>
> The same way you steal from Stevie Wonder when you give away copies
> of his music. HP gets money for copies of the software and you're
> allowing people to get it for free.
>
> So HP has to pay people for making the software, but doesn't get
> income to cover those paychecks.
>

I think one should differentiate here a bit.

It certainly isn't correct (and very unwise) what the OP does:
offering free downloads of stuff which should be distributed
by HP and authorized organisations (DECUS etc).

OTOH I don't see the economical damage to HP, since
it's the hobbyist distribution anyway, and its official distributors
charge little more than their administration costs for the CDs.
And plz, leave me alone with these hollow legalistic "it is IP"
arguments. If there's no economical damage involved I see no
reason to enforce IP. Anyway IMHO IP rights are way exaggerated,
in particular in the US centric economies.

Coming back to some of the quoted stuff:
If I buy used equipment, then the first owner has paid the paychecks
of the producer, so there's nothing wrong with selling it to
somebody else. And I see no real difference between a car,
a hobbyist CD or even a PAK. Its all used equipment.
Of course you're not allowed to replicate and sell it,
but one should be allowed to do anything else with it,
including selling it further.
Its mainly the IP lobby which forced law makers to produce laws,
which, if applied to cars, would force customers to return
their cars after use to the factory, instead of buying cheaper
used ones, if they so wish.
j***@aol.com
2005-06-27 12:24:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9p2co$ett$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) wrote:
>In article <***@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> In article <d9hklm$gh$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de
(Michael Kraemer) writes:
>> >
>> > In which way do I "steal" IP from HP this way ?
>> > I buy used equipment from somebody how as bought it from
>> > somebody else who has paid money to HP for the fresh equipment.
>> > If I buy a used car, do I "steal" it from GM ?
>>
>> The same way you steal from Stevie Wonder when you give away copies
>> of his music. HP gets money for copies of the software and you're
>> allowing people to get it for free.
>>
>> So HP has to pay people for making the software, but doesn't get
>> income to cover those paychecks.
>>
>
>I think one should differentiate here a bit.
>
>It certainly isn't correct (and very unwise) what the OP does:
>offering free downloads of stuff which should be distributed
>by HP and authorized organisations (DECUS etc).
>
>OTOH I don't see the economical damage to HP, since
>it's the hobbyist distribution anyway, and its official distributors
>charge little more than their administration costs for the CDs.
>And plz, leave me alone with these hollow legalistic "it is IP"
>arguments. If there's no economical damage involved I see no
>reason to enforce IP. Anyway IMHO IP rights are way exaggerated,
>in particular in the US centric economies.
>
>Coming back to some of the quoted stuff:
>If I buy used equipment, then the first owner has paid the paychecks
>of the producer, so there's nothing wrong with selling it to
>somebody else. And I see no real difference between a car,
>a hobbyist CD or even a PAK. Its all used equipment.

ARe you stating that you want government controls over
sales/distributions and redistributions of software that
isn't shrinkwrapped?

You really, really, really, REALLY don't know what you're
talking about. Now you have a million lawyers invovled.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 18:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Michael Kraemer wrote:
> If PAKs are considered necessary at all, then a single PAK for a
> single product, which means for VMS that everything a "modern" OS
> comes with these days should be included: network, GUI, LVM, multi-user.


This dates back from the Palmer era. There were cries to make VMS
affordable. His answer was to strip VMS of everything and make VMS
affordable :-) and then get you to pay seperatly for everything else.

(Instead of lowering the cost of VMS alltogether).

I think that Motif and TCPIP as well as the C compiler should be
operable with just the VMS licence and not require their own licence.

When Compaq donated the compilers to intel, it should have insisted that
the C compiler be distributed as part of base VMS systyems without
additional licence fees.
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-24 18:44:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> writes:

> I think that Motif and TCPIP as well as the C compiler should be
> operable with just the VMS licence and not require their own licence.

It would already be a gain if Motif and TCPIP would be included.
A C compiler would be nice-to-have, but not a must,
given the fact that commercial Unices don't include it anymore too.

> When Compaq donated the compilers to intel, it should have insisted that
> the C compiler be distributed as part of base VMS systyems without
> additional licence fees.

Maybe a well-configured gcc would do, like in Solaris.
Bob Koehler
2005-06-24 21:23:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9hk9t$b7$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <***@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> writes:
>
>> I think that Motif and TCPIP as well as the C compiler should be
>> operable with just the VMS licence and not require their own licence.

If Sun doesn't have to ship a C compiler with C-centric UNIX, why
should HP have to ship on with non-C-centric VMS?

How about a nice Macro-32 compiler/assembler, and BLISS compiler,
instead. Might help reduce the number of Mack truck holes in your
applications.
Robert Deininger
2005-06-25 10:42:35 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9hk9t$b7$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>, ***@gsi.de
(Michael Kraemer) wrote:

>In article <***@teksavvy.com>, JF Mezei
<***@teksavvy.com> writes:
>
>> I think that Motif and TCPIP as well as the C compiler should be
>> operable with just the VMS licence and not require their own licence.
>
>It would already be a gain if Motif and TCPIP would be included.
>A C compiler would be nice-to-have, but not a must,
>given the fact that commercial Unices don't include it anymore too.

Network and Windowing licences have been bundled with VMS systems for
maybe 15 years or so. The PAK names have changed a few times, "Enterprise
Integration Package", and "NET-APP-SUP-*" being bundled with new systems
at various times. Virtually all customers who bought new VMS systems
received these licenses.

The hobbyist, educational, and and CSLG programs do supply individual
PAKs, but they are delivered in one big DCL command file so you never have
to deal with them individually.

On Itanium, the PAKs have been reorganized. The bundle includes the OS,
unlimited users, networks, DECwindows, and various layered products, all
in a single PAK per system.

PAKs have always been available for individual products, but in practice
they have been sold mostly in the bundles. The "PAK hell" you describe
exists mostly in your mind, or in the distant past.
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 15:15:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <rdeininger-***@user-105n8cn.dialup.mindspring.com>, ***@mindspringdot.com (Robert Deininger) writes:
>
> On Itanium, the PAKs have been reorganized. The bundle includes the OS,
> unlimited users, networks, DECwindows, and various layered products, all
> in a single PAK per system.
>
> PAKs have always been available for individual products, but in practice
> they have been sold mostly in the bundles. The "PAK hell" you describe
> exists mostly in your mind, or in the distant past.

Well, if you call Jan-2005 (the date my hobbyist CD arrived) "distant past" ...

To run even a primitive VMS properly I have to type in a PAK
(after installation, doing it during the installation doesn't work,
for whatever reason). Motif needs another PAK. If I wanted to
apply the dozens of further PAKs via a DCL script I would have to fetch
it via ftp from somewhere, but, oh, that needs TCPIP to be up and running,
and that, of course, needs another PAK. See what I mean ?
Add to that that the altogether clumsy way a VMS system must be installed.
And compare that with contemporary UNIX systems (even including Tru64
which also has PAKs, but in a less annoying way): put the CD(s)
into the drive and there you go.
Richard Tomkins
2005-06-24 22:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Motif and TCPIP were developed in conjunction with partners of Digital.
Those folks are entitled to their Royalty payments and to make that happen,
a PAK is used to manage the actual product use.

There is a lot of cross licensed code and the folks that worked hard on
creating it are justified in expecting to be paid for their work and the use
of their IP.

rtt



"JF Mezei" <***@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:***@teksavvy.com...
> Michael Kraemer wrote:
> > If PAKs are considered necessary at all, then a single PAK for a
> > single product, which means for VMS that everything a "modern" OS
> > comes with these days should be included: network, GUI, LVM, multi-user.
>
>
> This dates back from the Palmer era. There were cries to make VMS
> affordable. His answer was to strip VMS of everything and make VMS
> affordable :-) and then get you to pay seperatly for everything else.
>
> (Instead of lowering the cost of VMS alltogether).
>
> I think that Motif and TCPIP as well as the C compiler should be
> operable with just the VMS licence and not require their own licence.
>
> When Compaq donated the compilers to intel, it should have insisted that
> the C compiler be distributed as part of base VMS systyems without
> additional licence fees.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 14:39:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <42bc83ab$***@spool9-west.superfeed.net>, "Richard Tomkins" <***@istop.com> writes:
> Motif and TCPIP were developed in conjunction with partners of Digital.
> Those folks are entitled to their Royalty payments and to make that happen,
> a PAK is used to manage the actual product use.

The same can be said of all other IT vendors, IBM, Sun, HP, SGI, etc.
None if them, AFAIK, has such a silly "atomistic" PAK scheme
for their OS components.
So why does DEC need to pass on its development cost in such
an unfriendly way ?
When I e.g. load an IBM box with AIX I see a boatload of copyright notices
going way back into the 80s, and very probably IBM has to pay
royalties as well. But you can load and run their OS w/o problems.
*Then* you may watch out and buy and license additional software and support.

> There is a lot of cross licensed code and the folks that worked hard on
> creating it are justified in expecting to be paid for their work and the use
> of their IP.

No problem with that. But why should I, as a customer/admin/user,
be worried with DECs royalty obligations ?
They should sort out their financial stuff internally,
like any other vendor does.
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 16:53:22 UTC
Permalink
Michael Kraemer wrote:
> I don't understand what the fuss is all about.
> As I understand it, HP isn't willing to sell the CDs to
> hobbyists at a decent price, so there's no revenue they
> would loose anyway.

The problem is that if there is a "free" way to download the SPL, then
commercial customers might no longer be interested in paying the big
bucks to buy SPL subscriptions. Hence the need to control access to the
SPL to hobbyists only.

When management looks at a request to approve this, if it results in
loss of revenu for HP (no matter how small), it then becomes harder to
justify allowing this.
Doc.
2005-06-24 19:58:11 UTC
Permalink
%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, JF Mezei wrote in news:***@teksavvy.com

> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>> I don't understand what the fuss is all about.
>> As I understand it, HP isn't willing to sell the CDs to
>> hobbyists at a decent price, so there's no revenue they
>> would loose anyway.
>
> The problem is that if there is a "free" way to download the SPL, then
> commercial customers might no longer be interested in paying the big
> bucks to buy SPL subscriptions. Hence the need to control access to the
> SPL to hobbyists only.

This is why hobbyists should strive to be beyond reproach. We're given
access to a lot of valuable IP, distributing it at random isn't exactly a
nice response.

> When management looks at a request to approve this, if it results in
> loss of revenu for HP (no matter how small), it then becomes harder to
> justify allowing this.

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.


Doc.
--
OpenVMS: Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.
http://www.openvms-rocks.com Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-24 20:10:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
"Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> writes:
> %NEWS-I-NEWMSG, JF Mezei wrote in news:***@teksavvy.com
>
>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>> I don't understand what the fuss is all about.
>>> As I understand it, HP isn't willing to sell the CDs to
>>> hobbyists at a decent price, so there's no revenue they
>>> would loose anyway.
>>
>> The problem is that if there is a "free" way to download the SPL, then
>> commercial customers might no longer be interested in paying the big
>> bucks to buy SPL subscriptions. Hence the need to control access to the
>> SPL to hobbyists only.
>
> This is why hobbyists should strive to be beyond reproach. We're given
> access to a lot of valuable IP, distributing it at random isn't exactly a
> nice response.
>
>> When management looks at a request to approve this, if it results in
>> loss of revenu for HP (no matter how small), it then becomes harder to
>> justify allowing this.
>
> 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.


bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Doc.
2005-06-24 20:45:23 UTC
Permalink
%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
news:***@individual.net

> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
> "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.

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.

What I'm expressing is a desire to see the good bits of VMS get publicity
and uptake, but I don't really want to see an OS replace it.




Doc.
--
OpenVMS: Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.
http://www.openvms-rocks.com Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.
j***@aol.com
2005-06-26 08:18:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
"Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
>%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
>news:***@individual.net
>
>> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
>> "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.
>
>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.

Good. I understand perfectly how you're feeling.
>
>What I'm expressing is a desire to see the good bits of VMS get publicity
>and uptake, but I don't really want to see an OS replace it.

It's not the replacing that is at risk; it's worse. It's the
complete irradication of all that accumulated knowledge
and experience that the OS holds. AFAICT, it's the last useful
OS in the world that doesn't require user mode wrestling for
anybody to get their work done.

/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
AEF
2005-06-27 13:54:10 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com wrote:
> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
> >%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
> >news:***@individual.net
> >
> >> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
> >> "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.


> >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. 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!

It may be legally okay for them to destroy VMS, but I strongly feel it
should be otherwise.

What I'm trying to say is that ownership should not, and is often not,
the be all and end all.


> Good. I understand perfectly how you're feeling.
> >
> >What I'm expressing is a desire to see the good bits of VMS get publicity
> >and uptake, but I don't really want to see an OS replace it.
>
> It's not the replacing that is at risk; it's worse. It's the
> complete irradication of all that accumulated knowledge
> and experience that the OS holds. AFAICT, it's the last useful
> OS in the world that doesn't require user mode wrestling for
> anybody to get their work done.
>
> /BAH
>
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
j***@aol.com
2005-06-27 11:54:29 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"AEF" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>***@aol.com wrote:
>> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
>> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
>> >%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
>> >news:***@individual.net
>> >
>> >> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
>> >> "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.

>
>
>> >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.

> ..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.

>
>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.
>
/BAH

Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
AEF
2005-06-27 15:47:34 UTC
Permalink
***@aol.com wrote:
> In article <***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "AEF" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >***@aol.com wrote:
> >> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
> >> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> wrote:
> >> >%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, Bill Gunshannon wrote in
> >> >news:***@individual.net
> >> >
> >> >> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
> >> >> "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.


See above.


> >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!

> >
> /BAH
>
> Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-27 16:19:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"AEF" <***@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> Then why couldn't the owner of Grand Central Terminal tear it down?

Because we have a warped court system.

> Then why are companies sued for defective products?

For the same reason they are sued when some idiot does something really
stupid with their product that it was not designed for and gets hurt.
(Remember, we have the court system that awarded several million dollars
for loss of psychic ability after a CAT-scan.)

> Why does Exxon have
> to "use" its Esso trademark to protect it?

Because trademarks are a totally different concept with different
rules entirely. A more important question would have been what right
did the government have to tell them they had to change their name
in the US? But that isn't generic to the discussion. :-)

> Why can't GM make sell cars
> that don't have pollution controls?

For the same reason I can't drive on the I81 at 150 mph. Our elected
government decided that it was in the public good to limit pollution
and it isn't worth the cost of making two differnt models in order to
service those places that have less strict requirements. (it should
be noted that even after both the US and Europe had strict pollution
requirements VW still manufactured the old Beetle without emissions
control in Mexico for sale in those places that still allowed them.)

> Why can't a developer build an
> office building ON HIS OWN LAND when it is zoned as a residential area?

Because it affects others than himself. And the one legitimate purpose
of government is to protect it's citizenry. He is free to convince those
he would affect that his plan is good for them and the zoning should be
changed.

> Copyright laws are another example. Patents expire.

Copyrights also expire.

>
> There are tons of laws about restrictions on ownership. There are even
> some things you are not allowed to own at all!

Most restrictions are about protecting others from the stupid acts of
the few. Exactly how does this apply to the licensing of VMS?

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
AEF
2005-06-25 16:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <***@212.100.160.126>,
> "Doc." <***@openvms-rocks.com> writes:
> > %NEWS-I-NEWMSG, JF Mezei wrote in news:***@teksavvy.com
> >
[...]
> > 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.

Ownership does not always imply such. Look at patents, trademarks, and
copyrights. These all expire. For example, take Exxon. Exxon used to
sell gasoline under three brand names: Esso, Humble, and Enco. Back
(uh, way back!) then, the brand you'd see at the pump varied with where
you were. I don't remember the exact reason, but it had something to do
with not being able to use certain brands in certain states. Anyway,
that's another story. Now, every once in a while you see a little
inconspicuous Esso sticker on an Exxon gas pump. Why? Because the law
says that if the trademark goes unused, it becomes freely available.
(BTW, AFAIK, Exxon still sells gasoline under the brand name Esso in
Europe and perhaps all other non-U.S. countries.)

Now, I don't know what the rules are on source code, but it seems to me
somehow wrong that something in demand for good reasons should be
allowed to die at the whim of the owner. Of course, the difference here
between brand names and source code is that while one can destroy
source code, one cannot destroy a trademark "source", i.e., one cannot
erase from the world's collective memory that Esso is a brand name of a
popular product and keep said trademark out of the hands of others. Of
course, ... (fill in other differences) ....
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 20:54:57 UTC
Permalink
"Doc." wrote:
> 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.


Technically, with HP breaking its promise to have VAX-VMS 8.2, it is
essentially the admission that it is no longer producing VAX software,
and no longer selling VAX hardware. So would distribution of VAX
software be any harm to HP since none of the VAX customers would be
getting anything they don't already have ?

In terms of Alpha, this is a bit touchy since there is still some
developmeht of VMS on Alpha. However, the 5 year mark since June 25 2001
comes next year. After which, HP could stop producing Alpha software,
especially if it stops Alpha systems sales before that. And at that time
distribution of Alpha media shouldn't deprive HP of any revenus at all.

And with customers not wishing to go IA64, the second HP drops alpha
system sales and/or software development, it will drive the remaining
customer base to stop adding anything to their VMS infrastructure and
build on Sun, Dell, IBM, or Lenovo systems.
j***@aol.com
2005-06-26 08:24:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>"Doc." wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>Technically, with HP breaking its promise to have VAX-VMS 8.2, it is
>essentially the admission that it is no longer producing VAX software,
>and no longer selling VAX hardware. So would distribution of VAX
>software be any harm to HP since none of the VAX customers would be
>getting anything they don't already have ?
>
>In terms of Alpha, this is a bit touchy since there is still some
>developmeht of VMS on Alpha. However, the 5 year mark since June 25 2001
>comes next year. After which, HP could stop producing Alpha software,
>especially if it stops Alpha systems sales before that. And at that time
>distribution of Alpha media shouldn't deprive HP of any revenus at all.

You're being an idiot (I'm saying this word with kindness). You are
talking about DEC work. DEC tied its software very closely to
the hardware. You cannot easily split VMS up w.r.t. CPU architecture.
This is because the OS developers used VAX code whenever they
could. That's how we worked. We did not like, and had no time,
to retest, redebug code that already worked.

Now, I did not do any work on the VAX nor Alpha nor VMS, but
JMF did. And he would have never rewritten VAX code when
doing the Alpha work if he could simply call it.


>
>And with customers not wishing to go IA64, the second HP drops alpha
>system sales and/or software development, it will drive the remaining
>customer base to stop adding anything to their VMS infrastructure and
>build on Sun, Dell, IBM, or Lenovo systems.

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 20:59:39 UTC
Permalink
One more thing, for HP to be able to sue people to the hilt for
promoting VMS, HP would first have to take onwership of the product and
advertise it as its own and prmote it and strongly indicate it wants to
grow it and finds its revenus extremely key to its survival.

The way HP has handled VMS since September 2001 when Curly announced he
was giving Digital and Tandem to HP, HP has not demonstrated publically
that it is really interested in VMS, certaintly not in Alpha VMS or VAX-VMS.

And if the rumour is true that HP hasn't kept the "VMS" trademark and
let it float to public domain further re-enforces the fact that HP
doesn't care about VMS. If it cared about VMS , it could have kept both
openVMS and VMS as active trademarks.


So in a way, it would be good to push HP to sue one of us to the hilt
and make a very public trial of it where HP's reputation is put to the
test and make damned sure that HP spareholders are aware of HP's
mishandling of VMS, forcing HP to start to assert onwership over VMS
with very public advertising etc etc.
Dave Froble
2005-06-25 05:30:32 UTC
Permalink
JF Mezei wrote:
> Opcom wrote:
>
>>There is a VMS dist. for VAX and Alpha hobbyists, or used to be,
>>which could be bought from Montagar Software. This was even one
>>of the answers given by to a hobbyist by "ask the wizard".
>
>
> The CD which you can buy at a very reasonable price from the fins
> Montagar folks doesn't contains half of the software the hobbyists
> programme entitles on to. There is a real need to provide access to the
> real CDs to download specific kits.
>
> As such, there is a need to talk to HP about methods to control such
> downloads and limit it to hobbyists so that we get access to the kits
> and HO is comfortable that such sustem won't be abused.
>
> There are plenty of us willing to offer hosting/bandwidth to help with
> the distribution. And from what I have been told, this issue has been
> on the back burner for years, and perhaps it is time to push it forwards
> and get it done.

Not speaking for HP.

I believe the issues involve some licensed technology that has been put
into parts of VMS. That's why some layered products are NOT in the
hobbyist program.

I'd think that if there weren't such obsticles, along with the legality
of some of the software making it to some countries, that there would be
an official site hosting downloads.

As has been mentioned, much of this stuff can be found, but the
availability isn't broadcast to the public.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
j***@aol.com
2005-06-26 08:28:45 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@corp.supernews.com>,
Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>JF Mezei wrote:
>> Opcom wrote:
>>
>>>There is a VMS dist. for VAX and Alpha hobbyists, or used to be,
>>>which could be bought from Montagar Software. This was even one
>>>of the answers given by to a hobbyist by "ask the wizard".
>>
>>
>> The CD which you can buy at a very reasonable price from the fins
>> Montagar folks doesn't contains half of the software the hobbyists
>> programme entitles on to. There is a real need to provide access to the
>> real CDs to download specific kits.
>>
>> As such, there is a need to talk to HP about methods to control such
>> downloads and limit it to hobbyists so that we get access to the kits
>> and HO is comfortable that such sustem won't be abused.
>>
>> There are plenty of us willing to offer hosting/bandwidth to help with
>> the distribution. And from what I have been told, this issue has been
>> on the back burner for years, and perhaps it is time to push it forwards
>> and get it done.
>
>Not speaking for HP.
>
>I believe the issues involve some licensed technology that has been put
>into parts of VMS. That's why some layered products are NOT in the
>hobbyist program.
>
>I'd think that if there weren't such obsticles, along with the legality
>of some of the software making it to some countries, that there would be
>an official site hosting downloads.
>
>As has been mentioned, much of this stuff can be found, but the
>availability isn't broadcast to the public.

Well, there may unsolvable technical problems, too. Once upon
a time, in the bad ol' days, there one, and only one, woman
who could create the paperwork that would "distribute" this
software so that the recipient of that package would be
able to install it. But that was internal order processing
infrastructure and may have nothing to do these difficulties
you guys are talking about. But it sure smells like the
same problem in a new medium. :-)

/BAH


Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
2005-06-27 11:55:07 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>JF Mezei wrote:
>> Opcom wrote:
>>
>>>There is a VMS dist. for VAX and Alpha hobbyists, or used to be,
>>>which could be bought from Montagar Software. This was even one
>>>of the answers given by to a hobbyist by "ask the wizard".
>>
>>
>> The CD which you can buy at a very reasonable price from the fins
>> Montagar folks doesn't contains half of the software the hobbyists
>> programme entitles on to. There is a real need to provide access to the
>> real CDs to download specific kits.
>>
>> As such, there is a need to talk to HP about methods to control such
>> downloads and limit it to hobbyists so that we get access to the kits
>> and HO is comfortable that such sustem won't be abused.
>>
>> There are plenty of us willing to offer hosting/bandwidth to help with
>> the distribution. And from what I have been told, this issue has been
>> on the back burner for years, and perhaps it is time to push it forwards
>> and get it done.
>
>Not speaking for HP.
>
>I believe the issues involve some licensed technology that has been put
>into parts of VMS. That's why some layered products are NOT in the
>hobbyist program.
>
Any such products would not have PAKS made available to the hobbyist program.
What people are talking about is a download site for all the software which is
not provided on the hobbyist CDs but which they have been given PAKS for.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University





>I'd think that if there weren't such obsticles, along with the legality
>of some of the software making it to some countries, that there would be
>an official site hosting downloads.
>
>As has been mentioned, much of this stuff can be found, but the
>availability isn't broadcast to the public.
>
>--
>David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
>Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
>DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
>170 Grimplin Road
>Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 14:54:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
> I believe the issues involve some licensed technology that has been put
> into parts of VMS. That's why some layered products are NOT in the
> hobbyist program.
>

This is another thing I don't understand
(well, I believe I'm thinking common sense here, not IP lawyer),
as long as they don't give away source code,
why can't they give away that stuff.
They're allowed to sell it, even if it has been licensed from 3rd parties,
so why not give it away for free ?
Does licensing include that they *must* charge for it ?
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-27 15:00:31 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9p3uq$fhg$***@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
***@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>
>> I believe the issues involve some licensed technology that has been put
>> into parts of VMS. That's why some layered products are NOT in the
>> hobbyist program.
>>
>
> This is another thing I don't understand
> (well, I believe I'm thinking common sense here, not IP lawyer),
> as long as they don't give away source code,
> why can't they give away that stuff.
> They're allowed to sell it, even if it has been licensed from 3rd parties,
> so why not give it away for free ?
> Does licensing include that they *must* charge for it ?

In most cases it involves accounting for and paying a fee for every
copy that goes out. If you don't charge the recipient where does
the money to pay the royalty fee come from? If they have negotiated
an agreement that lets them give it away to hobbyists it seems rather
counter-productive to take actions that might lead to someone in the
chain changing their minds.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Michael Kraemer
2005-06-27 17:20:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, ***@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> In most cases it involves accounting for and paying a fee for every
> copy that goes out. If you don't charge the recipient where does
> the money to pay the royalty fee come from?

But that's a monetary issue, not a legal one.
They could do as any other vendor does:
royalty costs are distributed over the whole product line.
Or how do you think e.g. Sun can give away their Solaris 8..10 ?
Do you think they don't pay any royalties ?

> If they have negotiated
> an agreement that lets them give it away to hobbyists it seems rather
> counter-productive to take actions that might lead to someone in the
> chain changing their minds.
>

Sure, it may give them excuses to stop this extra service
for a couple of hobbyist weirdo's.
Still I don't see any business or legal logic that would hinder HP
(or any company) to give away stuff for free even if they
have licensed parts of it from others.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-24 12:39:15 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> writes:
> Jeff Cameron wrote:
>> Unless you have entered into a special agreement with HP, this is in
>> violation of the standard software agreements, even if you have a "Right to
>> Copy". If you are lucky you may just get a "Cease and desist" slap, at worst
>> HP could really come down on you hard, and seize your equipment or worse.
>
> In all likelyhood, HP wouldn't notice.

Trust me, they'll notice.

>
> If some folks have been trying to get this dossier to move forwards for
> years, perhaps this is what it takes to let VMS management know that
> this is an important issue and raise its priority some.
>
> And if unofficial distribution starts, perhaps HP will see value in
> allowing one "official" hobbyist distribution that has the right
> controls to prevent abuse and also prevent loss of revenu.

Or maybe they will look at this in the same light as happened with the
PDP-11 when people started treating the OSes in a similar manner and
just kill the hobbyist program entirely. Ann Livermore said she
supported the Hobbyist Program, not the theft of HP's IP. And there
are people over her who may take a real dim view of this action.


>
> Or perhaps we could start digging a tunnel to the basement of ZKO, take
> pictures of the team who is porting VMS to the 8086 and then blackmail
> HP: give us distribution for hobbyists, or we reveal the proof that
> you're porting VMS to the 8086 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

I wouldn't be holding my breath at this point.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
2005-06-24 14:43:20 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, ***@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <***@teksavvy.com>,
> JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> writes:
>> Jeff Cameron wrote:
>>> Unless you have entered into a special agreement with HP, this is in
>>> violation of the standard software agreements, even if you have a "Right to
>>> Copy". If you are lucky you may just get a "Cease and desist" slap, at worst
>>> HP could really come down on you hard, and seize your equipment or worse.
>>
>> In all likelyhood, HP wouldn't notice.
>
>Trust me, they'll notice.
>
>>
>> If some folks have been trying to get this dossier to move forwards for
>> years, perhaps this is what it takes to let VMS management know that
>> this is an important issue and raise its priority some.
>>
>> And if unofficial distribution starts, perhaps HP will see value in
>> allowing one "official" hobbyist distribution that has the right
>> controls to prevent abuse and also prevent loss of revenu.
>
>Or maybe they will look at this in the same light as happened with the
>PDP-11 when people started treating the OSes in a similar manner and
>just kill the hobbyist program entirely. Ann Livermore said she
>supported the Hobbyist Program, not the theft of HP's IP. And there
>are people over her who may take a real dim view of this action.
>

However it seems remarkable that HP hasn't provided such download facilities
themselves ages ago. Being able to download the applications is useless if you
haven't got the PAKs to run them.
Come on HP join the 21st century.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

>
>>
>> Or perhaps we could start digging a tunnel to the basement of ZKO, take
>> pictures of the team who is porting VMS to the 8086 and then blackmail
>> HP: give us distribution for hobbyists, or we reveal the proof that
>> you're porting VMS to the 8086 :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
>I wouldn't be holding my breath at this point.
>
>bill
>
>--
>Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
>***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Didier Morandi
2005-06-24 15:54:05 UTC
Permalink
***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:

> Come on HP join the 21st century.

$ write sys$output ("Please wait...")

D.
j***@yahoo.com
2005-06-24 16:46:12 UTC
Permalink
***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> However it seems remarkable that HP hasn't provided such download facilities
> themselves ages ago. Being able to download the applications is useless if you
> haven't got the PAKs to run them.
> Come on HP join the 21st century.
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>

They have. If you have a subscription (or perhaps even just buy one
"issue") of the CONDIST you get a web site and password good for 3
months to download the latest versions of anything on the distribution.
Bob Koehler
2005-06-24 21:21:28 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9h668$7td$***@news.mdx.ac.uk>, ***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
> Being able to download the applications is useless if you
> haven't got the PAKs to run them.

For "fairly obvious" reasons DEC announced the LMF (which implements
the PAK scheme) as a "license management facility, not a license
enforcement facility". The downloads are not useless without a
PAK.
Tom Linden
2005-06-25 02:40:42 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Jun 2005 16:21:28 -0500, Bob Koehler
<***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:

> In article <d9h668$7td$***@news.mdx.ac.uk>, ***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
> writes:
>> Being able to download the applications is useless if you
>> haven't got the PAKs to run them.
>
> For "fairly obvious" reasons DEC announced the LMF (which implements
> the PAK scheme) as a "license management facility, not a license
> enforcement facility". The downloads are not useless without a
> PAK.
>
Oh, please do explain.
Dave Froble
2005-06-25 05:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Tom Linden wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2005 16:21:28 -0500, Bob Koehler
> <***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <d9h668$7td$***@news.mdx.ac.uk>, ***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>> writes:
>>
>>> Being able to download the applications is useless if you
>>> haven't got the PAKs to run them.
>>
>>
>> For "fairly obvious" reasons DEC announced the LMF (which implements
>> the PAK scheme) as a "license management facility, not a license
>> enforcement facility". The downloads are not useless without a
>> PAK.
>>
> Oh, please do explain.
>

It's not too dificult to break the LMF. No, I'm not going to say more.
People don'tneed any clues. If HP doesn't get revenues for VMS, then
what do they pay the engineers with?

You should understand this real well Tom.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Tom Linden
2005-06-25 13:34:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:45:57 -0400, Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com>
wrote:

> Tom Linden wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2005 16:21:28 -0500, Bob Koehler
>> <***@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <d9h668$7td$***@news.mdx.ac.uk>, ***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>> Being able to download the applications is useless if you
>>>> haven't got the PAKs to run them.
>>>
>>>
>>> For "fairly obvious" reasons DEC announced the LMF (which implements
>>> the PAK scheme) as a "license management facility, not a license
>>> enforcement facility". The downloads are not useless without a
>>> PAK.
>>>
>> Oh, please do explain.
>>
>
> It's not too dificult to break the LMF. No, I'm not going to say more.
> People don'tneed any clues. If HP doesn't get revenues for VMS, then
> what do they pay the engineers with?
>
> You should understand this real well Tom.

I do. What I was driving at is that HP probably doesn't allow free
downloads
because LMF can be defeated, and this way they can keep track of whom has
what.
Of course you can log and record all downloads, as we do, and you can
validate
IP's and so on, but that also is easy to spoof.
David J Dachtera
2005-06-24 02:11:56 UTC
Permalink
"***@comcast.net" wrote:
>
> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
> BASIC V3.9
> C V6.4
> C++ V5.6
> COBOL V5.7A
> FMS V2.4
> UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
> DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
> FORTRAN V6.6
> PASCAL V5.8
> These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
> permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
> is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I have
> cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
> likely I have it.

Well, that's not how I'd have done it, but perhaps forgiveness may be
easier to get than permission.

Then again, the way these are served (InterHose Exploder chokes on the
NLST format), it may be just as well that actually getting any of these
files will be slightly less trivial than restoring their RMS attributes
afterwards.

If it was me, I'd leak info via the "grape vine" that goodies can be had
by applying old rules of naming VMSINSTAL kits, or some such and trying
different "hidden" directories until you find something that works.

Then again, unless you're paying for a static IP address, that may be
subject to change:

$ mult nslo 68.35.167.136
Server: LOCALHOST
Address: 127.0.0.1

Name: bgp01380673bgs.svaley01.nm.comcast.net
Address: 68.35.167.136

--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

Coming soon:
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
Chris Moore
2005-06-24 03:27:40 UTC
Permalink
Generous though seriously unwise; see the following from the HP License
Agreement, specifically the last sentence in Part b.


GENERAL LICENSE TERMS
a. Software is owned and copyrighted by HP or by third party suppliers.
Customer's Software License confers no title or ownership and is not a sale
of any rights in the Software. Third party suppliers are intended
beneficiaries under this Agreement and may protect their rights in the
Software directly against the Customer in the event of any infringement.

b. Customer must reproduce all copyright notices and other proprietary
legends in or on the original Software on all permitted copies or
adaptations. You may not remove from the Software, or alter, any of the HP
trademarks, trade names, logos, patent or copyright notices or markings, or
add any other notices or markings to the Software. Customer may not copy the
Software onto any public or distributed network.

Take it down, or bear the potential consequences.
Chris

<***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
> BASIC V3.9
> C V6.4
> C++ V5.6
> COBOL V5.7A
> FMS V2.4
> UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
> DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
> FORTRAN V6.6
> PASCAL V5.8
> These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
> permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
> is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I have
> cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
> likely I have it.
> phillip
>
Dave Froble
2005-06-24 05:02:30 UTC
Permalink
***@comcast.net wrote:
> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
> BASIC V3.9
> C V6.4
> C++ V5.6
> COBOL V5.7A
> FMS V2.4
> UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
> DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
> FORTRAN V6.6
> PASCAL V5.8
> These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
> permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
> is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I have
> cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
> likely I have it.
> phillip
>

As other have said, you're opening yourself up to some potentially
serious legal action by HP.

The manner in which you've announced it, HP can't help but notice, and
will have to act to protect their property.

I'd suggest just as publically announcing that you've withdrawn the
software. If you do make it available in a much less public manner,
that's hopefully between you and the receipient.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 15:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Dave Froble wrote:
> As other have said, you're opening yourself up to some potentially
> serious legal action by HP.

I don't think that the first step HP would take is to hire lawyers to
instigate a serious legal action. My guess is that they would use a
normal employee to send a letter to the person advising them that this
is not legal.

If the person then relies "I am sorry, I di not know if it was legal,
and that he would be willing to work with HP to find ways to make
software media available to hobbysists, then my guess is that nothing
would escalate to "legal" threaths and perhaps it would put some
priority to the issue of finding an acceptable way to provide media to hobbyists.

> I'd suggest just as publically announcing that you've withdrawn the
> software.

No, I would wait for HP to contact him. But I would most certaintly stop
advertising it though.
Bill Gunshannon
2005-06-24 16:32:11 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@teksavvy.com>,
JF Mezei <***@teksavvy.com> writes:
> Dave Froble wrote:
>> As other have said, you're opening yourself up to some potentially
>> serious legal action by HP.
>
> I don't think that the first step HP would take is to hire lawyers to
> instigate a serious legal action.

HP, like any corporation, already employs more than enough lawyers
to handle this.

> My guess is that they would use a
> normal employee to send a letter to the person advising them that this
> is not legal.

That is one of the specific functions of those lawyers.

>
> If the person then relies "I am sorry, I di not know if it was legal,
> and that he would be willing to work with HP to find ways to make
> software media available to hobbysists, then my guess is that nothing
> would escalate to "legal" threaths and perhaps it would put some
> priority to the issue of finding an acceptable way to provide media to hobbyists.
>
>> I'd suggest just as publically announcing that you've withdrawn the
>> software.
>
> No, I would wait for HP to contact him. But I would most certaintly stop
> advertising it though.

Isn't that like saying I'll just keep speeding and running stop signs
till someone tells me to stop? The law is quite clear. And there is
no requirement for HP to be nice guys and just say, "Stop". The potential
cash liability for doing this could be very upseting And the offender
has absolutely no defense.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
***@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
JF Mezei
2005-06-24 16:49:50 UTC
Permalink
Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> HP, like any corporation, already employs more than enough lawyers
> to handle this.

How much would the legal, department charge VMS department for writing
of the letter ? Do you really think that HP as a corporation will notice
this ? In all likelyhood, some VMS employee would have seen the message
and told VMS management about it.

> Isn't that like saying I'll just keep speeding and running stop signs
> till someone tells me to stop? The law is quite clear. And there is
> no requirement for HP to be nice guys and just say, "Stop".


There is no requirement, you are correct. But consider that HP doesn't
see VMS as strategic, it doesn't advertise it, no longer sells VAXes,
and is soon to stop selling Alphas. While HP have every right to pounce
on the nice chap, my guess is that they won't. They are too big a fish
to be bothered by some silly little bothersome VMS issue of distributing
software for dead products.


If the chap had been distributing proprietary EFI software for IA64
systems or proprietary Windows drivers, then it is likely they would
have sent a court "cease and desist" order before even sending a angry
lawyer's letter.


And in terms of Digital-heritage management's protection of intellectual
property, do I need to remind you that Digital turned a blind eye on
Intel stealing Alpha IP for years and only brought the issue up only
once Palmer had runned out of ways to raise money and then went to Intel
to beg for some financial help ?

Need I remind you that digital heritage people donated a lot of VMS's
leading edge IP to Microsoft in exchange for the right to sell Windows,
something Microsoft does to anyone who asks for it ?

And you're worried that HP would think this donloading of a few VMS
specific files that need a licence to be of any use is a huge problem ??????
Dave Froble
2005-06-25 05:49:48 UTC
Permalink
JF Mezei wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>>HP, like any corporation, already employs more than enough lawyers
>>to handle this.
>
>
> How much would the legal, department charge VMS department for writing
> of the letter ? Do you really think that HP as a corporation will notice
> this ? In all likelyhood, some VMS employee would have seen the message
> and told VMS management about it.
>
>
>>Isn't that like saying I'll just keep speeding and running stop signs
>>till someone tells me to stop? The law is quite clear. And there is
>>no requirement for HP to be nice guys and just say, "Stop".
>
>
>
> There is no requirement, you are correct. But consider that HP doesn't
> see VMS as strategic, it doesn't advertise it, no longer sells VAXes,
> and is soon to stop selling Alphas. While HP have every right to pounce
> on the nice chap, my guess is that they won't. They are too big a fish
> to be bothered by some silly little bothersome VMS issue of distributing
> software for dead products.
>
>
> If the chap had been distributing proprietary EFI software for IA64
> systems or proprietary Windows drivers, then it is likely they would
> have sent a court "cease and desist" order before even sending a angry
> lawyer's letter.
>
>
> And in terms of Digital-heritage management's protection of intellectual
> property, do I need to remind you that Digital turned a blind eye on
> Intel stealing Alpha IP for years and only brought the issue up only
> once Palmer had runned out of ways to raise money and then went to Intel
> to beg for some financial help ?
>
> Need I remind you that digital heritage people donated a lot of VMS's
> leading edge IP to Microsoft in exchange for the right to sell Windows,
> something Microsoft does to anyone who asks for it ?
>
> And you're worried that HP would think this donloading of a few VMS
> specific files that need a licence to be of any use is a huge problem ??????

JF. You keep ignoring the posts that refer to parts of the software
coming from other sources, which require royalties be paid.

One poster also mentioned export restrictions.

Ignoring these issues doesn't make them irrelavant.

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486
JF Mezei
2005-06-25 06:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Dave Froble wrote:
> JF. You keep ignoring the posts that refer to parts of the software
> coming from other sources, which require royalties be paid.

No, I am not ignoring them.

The hobbyist licences cover a very large list of products. The hobbyist
CD covers only a small subset of the licensed hobbyist products.

For Motif, now that motif is open sourced for non0proprietary platforms,
the owner of VMS got agreement from the open motif folks to allow free
distribution of motif to thsoe who don't pay for VMS licences. (you can
download the mtif source code now that it is open, but of course, the
current code is much more advanced than the archaic Motif available on VMS).

> One poster also mentioned export restrictions.

Again, those export restrictions apply to the hobbysist programme as
well, so if you don't have licences for the product, the kit is rather useless.

I fully agree that the downloading of kits has to have controls and
restrictions to it to prevent abuse. But hobbysist shoudl be able to
download any kit for which there are hobbyist licences.
d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
2005-06-27 11:58:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>JF Mezei wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>>HP, like any corporation, already employs more than enough lawyers
>>>to handle this.
>>
>>
>> How much would the legal, department charge VMS department for writing
>> of the letter ? Do you really think that HP as a corporation will notice
>> this ? In all likelyhood, some VMS employee would have seen the message
>> and told VMS management about it.
>>
>>
>>>Isn't that like saying I'll just keep speeding and running stop signs
>>>till someone tells me to stop? The law is quite clear. And there is
>>>no requirement for HP to be nice guys and just say, "Stop".
>>
>>
>>
>> There is no requirement, you are correct. But consider that HP doesn't
>> see VMS as strategic, it doesn't advertise it, no longer sells VAXes,
>> and is soon to stop selling Alphas. While HP have every right to pounce
>> on the nice chap, my guess is that they won't. They are too big a fish
>> to be bothered by some silly little bothersome VMS issue of distributing
>> software for dead products.
>>
>>
>> If the chap had been distributing proprietary EFI software for IA64
>> systems or proprietary Windows drivers, then it is likely they would
>> have sent a court "cease and desist" order before even sending a angry
>> lawyer's letter.
>>
>>
>> And in terms of Digital-heritage management's protection of intellectual
>> property, do I need to remind you that Digital turned a blind eye on
>> Intel stealing Alpha IP for years and only brought the issue up only
>> once Palmer had runned out of ways to raise money and then went to Intel
>> to beg for some financial help ?
>>
>> Need I remind you that digital heritage people donated a lot of VMS's
>> leading edge IP to Microsoft in exchange for the right to sell Windows,
>> something Microsoft does to anyone who asks for it ?
>>
>> And you're worried that HP would think this donloading of a few VMS
>> specific files that need a licence to be of any use is a huge problem ??????
>
>JF. You keep ignoring the posts that refer to parts of the software
>coming from other sources, which require royalties be paid.
>
>One poster also mentioned export restrictions.
>
>Ignoring these issues doesn't make them irrelavant.
>
It does for this discussion since royalty products will not have had PAKS
issued to the hobbyists.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University



>--
>David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
>Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. Fax: 724-529-0596
>DFE Ultralights, Inc. E-Mail: ***@tsoft-inc.com
>170 Grimplin Road
>Vanderbilt, PA 15486
Larry Kilgallen
2005-06-27 13:30:38 UTC
Permalink
In article <d9opkl$oqc$***@news.mdx.ac.uk>, ***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

>>JF. You keep ignoring the posts that refer to parts of the software
>>coming from other sources, which require royalties be paid.
>>
>>One poster also mentioned export restrictions.
>>
>>Ignoring these issues doesn't make them irrelavant.
>>
> It does for this discussion since royalty products will not have had PAKS
> issued to the hobbyists.

How can you know for certain the contents of all such arrangements.
Motif is (or was) a royalty product, but there was a special deal
for hobbyist arrangements. I do not know the details of that deal,
and I do not see how others involved in these discussions can know
them for all such products.
JF Mezei
2005-06-27 13:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Larry Kilgallen wrote:
> > It does for this discussion since royalty products will not have had PAKS
> > issued to the hobbyists.
>
> How can you know for certain the contents of all such arrangements.
> Motif is (or was) a royalty product, but there was a special deal
> for hobbyist arrangements. I do not know the details of that deal,
> and I do not see how others involved in these discussions can know
> them for all such products.


I will try to word it differently since many seem to have the same misconception.

The Hobbyist programme has managed to get authorisation to distribute
PAKs for a whole slew of products, most of which are not included in the
Hobbyist CD. This authorisation implicitely means that rights/royalties
for any attached technologies have been approved.


From HP's point of view, perhaps the Hobbyist programme *could* be seen
as a single corporation with a right-to-copy for media. The Hobbyist
programme *could* therefore distribute copies of all relevant media kits
(those for which it is allowed to issue PAKs) inside its organisation
(consisting of all hobbyists).

The word *could* could/should be replaced with "*should*" in the above paragraph.
d***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk
2005-06-27 14:05:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@eisner.encompasserve.org>, ***@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>In article <d9opkl$oqc$***@news.mdx.ac.uk>, ***@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>> In article <***@corp.supernews.com>, Dave Froble <***@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
>>>JF. You keep ignoring the posts that refer to parts of the software
>>>coming from other sources, which require royalties be paid.
>>>
>>>One poster also mentioned export restrictions.
>>>
>>>Ignoring these issues doesn't make them irrelavant.
>>>
>> It does for this discussion since royalty products will not have had PAKS
>> issued to the hobbyists.
>
>How can you know for certain the contents of all such arrangements.
>Motif is (or was) a royalty product, but there was a special deal
>for hobbyist arrangements. I do not know the details of that deal,
>and I do not see how others involved in these discussions can know
>them for all such products.

Because HP (and COMPAQ and DEC before them) have to know this information.
The hobbyist program is not the only program where such restrictions apply.
The DECCAMPUS PAK CD does not include PAKs for "Royalty products" or for
those with export restrictions.
The paperwork with the listings which shows which CD the software is on
together with PAK name etc lists the software but in the LMF name column
lists either "Royalty Product" or "Export controlled". Users wanting to use
those products need to contact HP. (Note. The products are included on the
software distribution it is just the PAKs which are withheld).


If HP has allowed Royalty product or Export controlled products onto the
hobbyist PAKS then since they have already condoned people informally sharing
media then they are already giving away someone else's IP or breaching export
regulations.
I do not believe that that is the case.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
Jeff Cameron
2005-06-25 03:27:17 UTC
Permalink
On 6/24/05 8:57 AM, in article ***@teksavvy.com, "JF Mezei"
<***@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> Dave Froble wrote:
>> As other have said, you're opening yourself up to some potentially
>> serious legal action by HP.
>
> I don't think that the first step HP would take is to hire lawyers to
> instigate a serious legal action. My guess is that they would use a
> normal employee to send a letter to the person advising them that this
> is not legal.

You are right, they wouldn't hire any lawyers. They already have a whole
floor of them looking for something to do.
>
> If the person then relies "I am sorry, I di not know if it was legal,
> and that he would be willing to work with HP to find ways to make
> software media available to hobbysists, then my guess is that nothing
> would escalate to "legal" threaths and perhaps it would put some
> priority to the issue of finding an acceptable way to provide media to
> hobbyists.
>
>> I'd suggest just as publically announcing that you've withdrawn the
>> software.
>
> No, I would wait for HP to contact him. But I would most certaintly stop
> advertising it though.
Tom Linden
2005-06-24 14:57:32 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Jun 2005 10:23:33 -0700, ***@comcast.net
<***@comcast.net> wrote:

> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
> BASIC V3.9
> C V6.4
> C++ V5.6
> COBOL V5.7A
> FMS V2.4
> UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
> DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
> FORTRAN V6.6
> PASCAL V5.8
> These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
> permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
> is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I have
> cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
> likely I have it.
> phillip
>
PL/I 3.8 at kednos.com may be freely downloaded
William Webb
2005-06-24 17:48:48 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Jun 2005 10:23:33 -0700, ***@comcast.net
<***@comcast.net> wrote:
> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
> BASIC V3.9
> C V6.4
> C++ V5.6
> COBOL V5.7A
> FMS V2.4
> UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
> DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
> FORTRAN V6.6
> PASCAL V5.8
> These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
> permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
> is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I have
> cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
> likely I have it.
> phillip
>
>

Bad move, Phillip.

I concur with others: take it down ASAP.

While HP has been quite generous in terms of its flexibility vis-a-vis
the Hobbyist Program, "HP don't do warez".

And we don't need for you to create any ill will for VMS or the
Hobbyist Program.

You've made yourself quite vulnerable now for any number of reasons,
violations of licensing agreements, copyright law and possibly even
export restrictions, to name a few.

Considering how many folks from HP hang here, I'm sure you'll find out
about that Real Soon Now.

WWWebb

--
NOTE: This email address is only used for noncommerical VMS-related
correspondence.
All unsolicited commercial email will be deemed to be a request for
services pursuant to the terms and conditions located at
http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/e/webbww/
Doc.
2005-06-24 20:04:02 UTC
Permalink
%NEWS-I-NEWMSG, ***@comcast.net wrote in
news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp

Phillip,

I'm going to put up the same message as yesterday.

Please take this down.

You've seen the response from the community at large, we want to be able to
continue sharing shoftware quietly. The way you're pushing the issue could
kill Hobbyist use of VMS altogether.


Doc.
--
OpenVMS: Eight out of ten hackers prefer *other* operating systems.
http://www.openvms-rocks.com Deathrow Public-Access OpenVMS Cluster.
David J Dachtera
2005-06-25 02:12:21 UTC
Permalink
"Doc." wrote:
>
> %NEWS-I-NEWMSG, ***@comcast.net wrote in
> news:***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
>
> > Hello
> > The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
>
> Phillip,
>
> I'm going to put up the same message as yesterday.
>
> Please take this down.
>
> You've seen the response from the community at large, we want to be able to
> continue sharing shoftware quietly. The way you're pushing the issue could
> kill Hobbyist use of VMS altogether.

Gotta agree with Doc here. We've lost our champion and if any damage is
done, undoing it will border on the impossible.

--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

Coming soon:
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
Hans
2005-06-25 11:16:24 UTC
Permalink
***@comcast.net wrote:

> Hello
> The following VAX software is available for download using ftp
> BASIC V3.9
> C V6.4
> C++ V5.6
> COBOL V5.7A
> FMS V2.4
> UCX V4.2 AND V5.3
> DW-MOTIF V1.2-6
> FORTRAN V6.6
> PASCAL V5.8
> These are from the December 2004/Q4 CDL. I will be adding more as time
> permits. Right now the software can only be access by ftp. The address
> is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> needed. If there is a layered product you need then let me know. I
> have cds going back to 92 so if its a HP VAX layered product more then
> likely I have it.
> phillip

Dear Phillip

No entry to your server possible without password.

greating

Hans
David J Dachtera
2005-06-25 17:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Hans wrote:
> [snip]
> The address
> > is 68.35.167.136 and the username is vaxsoftware. No password is
> > needed. [snip]
>
> Dear Phillip
>
> No entry to your server possible without password.

This URL did work in Netscape:

ftp: slash slash vaxsoftware at 68.35.167.136 slash

It also worked in InterHose Exploder, but IE chokes on the NLST data
(display is useless for point-and-click).

Neither works as of the moment (25-Jun-2005 12:33 CDT US).

I'm guessing he's either removed the content or added the password (of
both) for his own reasons.

--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

Coming soon:
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...