9 May
2007
9 May
'07
10:32 a.m.
To answer a few details in short.
PDP-11 licenses (alteast RSX, and I believe all of them) are bound to a
specific customer. So they don't transfer along with the hardware.
However, DEC did have a license transfer program. It wasn't expensive,
and I used it at my end back when DEC still existed.
I think it was still possible to transfer licenses after Mentec bought
the software and DEC still sold it. What the exact status of this is
right now, I don't know. Haven't asked.
As for Jay West and Jerome Fine's claims that it's all right just
because Mentec haven't set any lawyers on their backs must stand for
them. I don't think it's okay, and furthermore, I don't think their
claims that it's OK because they think that Mentec knows a lot of things
will hold much water if it went to court. But that's just my thoughts.
And yes, I do speak with Mentec on business matters from time to time,
so I'm not totally unaware of what they do.
If Jay West happens to know for a fact that Mentec is aware of the
discussions here, and furthermore, have proof that people here are
running their software without a license, and choose to not do anything
about it, then I think it would be a good thing for him to actually say
so, since it actually would strengthen his case against Mentec, if it
ever came to that. By playing the "it's not something we're willing to
discuss in public" is just idle talk, since it's in fact more supporting
of what I'm saying than what he is.
But I'll leave it here. No point in arguing. Everyone have to decide for
them self. I do notice that noone have yet publicly admitted to
violating Mentecs IP rights.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
9 May
9 May
3:19 p.m.
To answer a few details in short.
PDP-11 licenses (alteast RSX, and I believe all of them) are bound to a
specific customer. So they don't transfer along with the hardware.
However, DEC did have a license transfer program. It wasn't expensive,
and I used it at my end back when DEC still existed.
I think it was still possible to transfer licenses after Mentec bought
the software and DEC still sold it. What the exact status of this is
right now, I don't know. Haven't asked.
As I understand it, if you can prove the machine is licensed, and that you
have a right to that license you can have it transfered. The trick is
proving the machine is licensed as in many/most cases the necessary
paperwork has been lost and likely no longer exists.
As for Jay West and Jerome Fine's claims that
it's all right just
because Mentec haven't set any lawyers on their backs must stand for
them. I don't think it's okay, and furthermore, I don't think their
claims that it's OK because they think that Mentec knows a lot of things
will hold much water if it went to court. But that's just my thoughts.
And yes, I do speak with Mentec on business matters from time to time,
so I'm not totally unaware of what they do.
The claims are just plain foolish and dangerous. They don't do anyone any
good, and they could do harm.
Zane
4:08 p.m.
In article <200705091919.l49JJDJr023029 at onyx.spiritone.com>,
"Zane H. Healy" <healyzh at aracnet.com> writes:
As I understand it, if you can prove the machine is
licensed, and that you
have a right to that license you can have it transfered. The trick is
proving the machine is licensed as in many/most cases the necessary
paperwork has been lost and likely no longer exists.
Just out of curiosity, what sort of paperwork would you need to
produce?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
4:22 p.m.
Zane wrote...
As I understand it, if you can prove the machine is
licensed, and that you
have a right to that license you can have it transfered. The trick is
proving the machine is licensed as in many/most cases the necessary
paperwork has been lost and likely no longer exists.
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...
> As for Jay West and Jerome Fine's claims that
it's all right just
> because Mentec haven't set any lawyers on their backs must stand for
> them.
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.
The claims are just plain foolish and dangerous. They
don't do anyone any
good, and they could do harm.
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
6262
days inactive
6262
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
bqt＠softjar.se -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
legalize＠xmission.com