PDP-11 Software (Was: Mentec)

Zane wrote... The problem I have with the above is that it infers an absolute - that if.... 1) "you can prove the machine is licensed" and 2) "you {can prove that} you have a right to that license" you can then have it transferred. As a general statement of software licensing that is certainly false. I'm sure I can find 100's of examples of software packages where the above is not true. You have to keep in mind that the above may be true for a specific license, at a specific date/time, depending on the mood of whoever is on the licensor side of the discussion. We need to be careful that the above isn't represented as "this is how it usually works". Johnny wrote... That is taking what I was saying out of context. I was speaking in general terms that from a legal standpoint a company that does not enforce it's licenses is in jeopardy of having difficulty enforcing those licenses in the future. That is a simple fact of software law. It does not translate into "it's ok, let's pirate". In the case of Mentec specifically, there is a lot more to the discussion than just that one point. I rather resent you saying that I feel it's OK to pirate software. With regards to Mentec, there are a lot more things involved than just saying "if they don't pursue it, it's ok". What I DID say was that a company that doesn't enforce their licenses consistently will have trouble doing so in the future. I did not make the leap of saying "it is ok to pirate mentec software". That is something you injected into the discussion. No, what is just plain foolish and dangerous is how Johnny is taking what I said out of context and ascribing the modifications to me, and posting it publicly as if that was the full substance of my statements. Best regards, Jay West