On 09/11/2015 21:42, Josh Dersch wrote: Yes, Revision E. XXDP diagnostic files are labelled with the first character denoting the type of system/processor they're supposed to run on, the next pair denotes the device they're to test, the fourth denotes which test it is within a set, and the last two are the version number and patch level. The leading D in the title stands for "document" or "documentation" IIRC and isn't part of the diagnostic name. The specific diagnostic is usually something like (in this case) ZQKCE0.BIN if it's on a disk, but old paper tape titles often don't note a patch level. Z means it should run on any processor QK denotes a CPU diagnostic C means it's the third of a set intended to be run in sequence E is the version "number" (5th version, or 4th revision if you like) Usually DEC changed the version character (always a letter) if things like entry points or error halts or routines moved or changed, and just changed the patch level (always a numeric digit) if things like locations of error halts remained the same. So ZQKCEn will have significantly different code and error halts than ZQKCCn. Interesting that ZQKB is in that tar file along with ZQKC, but ZQKA isn't. -- Pete Pete Turnbull

On 11/10/15 2:10 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: Thanks! Just send me an email as you add things, and I will pick them up.

I also notice that the /bits/ files do not seem to have had the same attention as the /pdf/ side of the fence. In particular, as an RT-11 addict, there are many additional image files available on the internet which are not reflected at bitsavers and its mirrors. While I agree that you may be concerned that some at those image files are for versions of RT-11 after V05.03, at least a few are not and at least those had been explicitly allowed even by Mentec. Would you find it appropriate to host these files at bitsavers and its mirrors? In addition, a few internet sites have also had a number of files for versions of RT-11 after V05.03 for over 5 years now. Since bitsavers and its mirrors are probably better known than most other sites, would you also find it appropriate to host these as well? Do you also have an incoming directory which will accept image files? You can then move them to the correct sub-directory and maybe even rename them? Some of the RT-11 image files have DEC ( owner / volumeID ) values which are the equivalent of the names given to PDF files for DEC manuals. Please advise whether or not you wish to have copies of these RT-11 DEC image files. Jerome Fine

I think bitsavers is the best spot for that type of thing. But if for whatever reason Al doesn't wish to, I'd be happy to put them at: http://www.classiccmp.org/PDP-11/ in the RT11 directory. There are already files and distributions of interest there. J

One of the TRS-80 Model II enthusiasts has recently set up an archive of Model II/12/16/6000 software and documentation on GitHub: https://github.com/pski/model2archive Perhaps a similar, structured and curated archive for RT-11 materials would be awesome? This method makes it very easy for anybody to locally mirror the archive, and it provides a complete history of changes to the archive over time. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net> http://www.nf6x.net/

We have been through this loop before I believe. Didn't DEC sell the PDP-11 rights to Mentec and from there they passed to a mysterious unnamed individual. Is owned by unknown a legal status? Rod Smallwood On 14/11/15 22:41, Johnny Billquist wrote:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Paul Koning wrote: Copyright infringement is not theft... at least according to the Supreme Court, but then again, what do they know? g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!

I entirely agree. It's my understanding that Archive.org does archive items that are not publicly available on its external servers, for the sole purpose of preserving them until such time that they might be again needed. I see this as laudable, and harmless to present rights-holders (when they can even be identified, which is not always the case). If one preserves the only known copy of some old piece of software before the bits rot, and the proper rights-holder later emerges and takes exception to that, then there's potential recourse by apologizing at the simplest, or paying damages in the worst case. But if one doesn't archive that last copy before the media becomes unreadable, then the data is just gone. In the specific case of RT-11, it doesn't appear to me to be true abandonware since one or more potential rights holders are identified. The issue seems from the outside to be that none of them can be bothered to figure out who owns what. I certainly hope that all of the software in question will be archived by *somebody* while it still exists, even if it's kept off of public servers out of respect for the rights-holders (or at least, out of concern about being sued by them). I don't accept the argument that the concept of abandonware is nothing more than a ploy to steal food from the mouths of others. I've heard more than one tale of the legitimate rights holders of pieces of software ceasing to exist, with any successors being unidentifiable, unaware that the software in question exists, and/or simply not caring. In such a case, I believe that preservation of the software for future generations trumps any pedantic adherence to arbitrary rules stating that since a clearly identifiable owner has never formally released the software, it must simple be allowed to vanish forever. Preserve the data and software while it's still possible! If an owner comes forward later who gets pissed off about it, we can deal with that as it comes up. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net> http://www.nf6x.net/

This is a long response, but I beg all people interested to read all of it. And to start with, I generally agree with Paul. Especially about the fact that just because you don't know who the owner is does in no way make something "abandonware" (and this is not specifically you, Ian.) But more below... On 2015-11-15 05:25, Ian Finder wrote: What is "retrocomputing"? And how do you mean it will die because some people think that it is not above the law? I don't know exactly what you have done, so I can't really comment on it. But in general, yes, it is a sad problem that sometimes it is hard to figure out the legal status and who is the owner of software. But that is not the case with the PDP-11 software talked about in this thread. Agreed. But that is still not the case here. Very true. But not the case in this specific thread. I disagree with almost all of the above, with the exception of "theft". As others mentioned, the word "theft" is not a good word to use here, and it has been promoted by organizations that wants to associate the "problem" with something that people will react emotionally to. But for software that in general you can't find the owner, and even the legal status is hard to figure out, I think that at least some basic effort to preserve and share things can be nice. However, people who use your argument, Ian, tend to start applying it to anything they want, which is, for me, crossing a line that I do not agree with. In the specific example of the PDP-11 software that this thread is about, it's not even "abandonware". The term "abandonware" is in it self really problematic, because it is very much a subjective term. If you cannot get access or permission, and you also don't get any response, you consider the software to be "abandonware", which might be very far from the truth. The owner might not want to talk to you. The owner might not want anyone else to know he is the owner. The owner might be busy, have a bad spamfilter, or whatever. That do not make the software "abandonware". If you want to claim that something is "abandonware", then you should first do a *very* thorough work trying to locate the owner, and document everything that you find, or don't find, and really show that you tried everything. If that still turns up nothing, then I can agree that *maybe* the term "abandonware" might be applicable. I agree that I have a hard time calling software theft "theft". For me as well, "theft" involves denying the rightful owner access/use of the item. Intellectual property is a weird concept. However (and I hope people actually reads this far), XX2247 decided to buy the software from Mentec. There is an easy trail to follow, showing that there is a legal entity that still owns this software. And even if you disagree with the "theft" thing, consider this: the owner of XX2247 made an effort that cost money, in order to preserve this software for the future (an effort people here use as an argument for their actions that might not be legal). By doing what XX2247 did, they agreed to follow the DEC-Mentec agreement. If people put the PDP-11 software up in general, they are violating copyright laws (and possibly IP rights). In addition to themselves potentially breaking the law, they are potentially also setting XX2247 up, since the owners of the IP rights could argue that XX2247 are also guilty for not protecting those IP rights. So in the end, you might be setting the person who tried to preserve this software up for legal effects that he certainly do not deserve. Now, what do you think is the right way to deal with this? Me personally, I think we need to get HP to release it all. After that, I'm pretty sure people would find it much easier to get access to PDP-11 software. 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

This situation has been so confused for so many decades that I am at a complete loss about what that "one possible answer" may be. If you do have any information or conclusions, please share them with all of us. At this point, I doubt that any new or different information would make things any worse and that additional clarification might help us to understand. Actually, although I understand your reference to Deep Throat, I don't think I ever knew or I don't remember the quote in question. I am probably not the only person. So PLEASE!!! Jerome Fine

On 11/15/15 9:43 AM, rod wrote: Magenta and Wild Rose

Here is my attempt to convert the DEC Standard 092 color specifications to RGB http://www.chdickman.com/pdp8/DECcolors/ No Wild Rose on the list, but there is a Brite Rose. On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 4:57 PM, rod <rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> wrote:

On 21 November 2015 at 09:04, Charles Dickman <chd at chdickman.com> wrote: A possible slight correction for your list. Pantone Process Blue is 0, 133, 207 (X'0082CA'). Basing this off of the Pantone Solid Coated colour library in Adobe Photoshop CC2015. Cheers, Christian -- Christian M. Gauger-Cosgrove STCKON08DS0 Contact information available upon request.

On 2015-11-15 17:28, Mouse wrote: Good point. But that just makes it even more complicated. Agree. I think the whole concept of intellectual property is weird. Calling some thought in your head a "property" have strange implications. If I say some words that makes you think of something, can I then make you violate my intellectual property? When if you thought of the same idea independently? How did you violate my intellectual property in that case? Weird... I think copyright law sortof makes more sense, and should be enough here. Sad, but true. Yeah. Which is basically what I try to do. Yes. But I still think that is the best bet for now. I think it could actually make sense for them to just put out a blanket statement that they release all claims on any PDP-11 software. That would hopefully not take much effort or time on their part, and it would be all that we need. However, I suspect that it's still a case that noone at HP really dares to do that. They don't have a clear idea what the ramifications would be, and so they will not. But one would hope that they will sooner or later feel that there is not anything left in there that they are willing to even think of. Indeed. 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

The ?second? approach is what we are using for the TRS-80 Model II archive that Mark mentioned (https://github.com/pski/model2archive <https://github.com/pski/model2archive>). While we have received explicit permission from copyright owners that we can determine, such as Scott Adams for his Model II versions of the adventure games, the rest is made available until someone says ?please take this down because I own it and don?t want it distributed?. It seems to be the best balanced approach for rescuing the software from oblivion while also respecting authorship of no longer commercially available software.

On 2015-11-15 20:01, Paul Koning wrote: This is obviously the safest approach. However, it do limit what you can use. I think this can be acceptable, within some limits. For instance, making money in such a case would definitely be going to far, in my book. Also, establishing some kind of reputation, based on such sources would also be something I would disagree with. I don't know enough of bitsavers policy or approach to really comment. But my understanding of Google is that they seem to lean on the fair use clause a lot. Which means they do not publish full content, but only smaller parts, and this is legally ok to do. Now, this is just my understanding. I might be wrong in any number of ways on this... Yeah, I get the feeling this is where some of the arguments here end up, which also for me is an unacceptable conclusion. I personally don't have a problem with copyright. I do have some issues with "owning" ideas... :-) 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

On 2015-11-15 20:37, Paul Koning wrote: I think we're pretty much on the same page. Intellectual Property, as I use it here, covers more than just copyright. Let's not even go there. Software patents are a quagmire. 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

Sorry about that old chap. I had meant to agree that there was owner but I did not know how to confirm who they where. All this is doing me head in. I'm going to apply for a place at the home for the bewildered. Rod On 15/11/15 01:22, Paul Koning wrote:

I have no interest in causing any deliberate harm to whoever may hold the rights to RT-11, but I am curious about whether the rights holder has shown any interest in preserving old RT-11 code and documentation that has no current commercial value. I would very much hate to see such stuff lost forever, and strongly feel that it should be preserved now to ensure that it will still exist at some future time when it either passes into public domain or becomes legally owned by somebody interested in preserving it.

Has anybody contacted the RT-11 rights holder to see if they might be interested in a program like that? I think it could only work with their blessing and cooperation.

HP? I know HP acquired VMS, but I always had the impression that all PDP11 stuff (except IAS???) went to Mentec, not HP. So it's Mentec or its successors who own it, and who would have to do the licensing. That might be anything from "no" to a hobbyist license to whatever they want. Public domain? I suppose one could imagine that being done, but it's rare for stuff to be released into the public domain. A generous license of some sort is more common; open source is one good example, hobbyist or "not for profit" licenses are somewhat more restrictive but still not a bad deal. paul

On 2015-11-15 02:32, Paul Koning wrote: It's murky waters, I'm afraid. But essentially, as I understand the state of things, DEC "sold" the PDP-11 software to Mentec, but at the same time they retained the intellectual property rights. So Mentec could develop and release new versions, but they were not free to actually release sources to anything without approval by DEC. And anything that says "DEC" should now be read "HP". Compare it to the deal VSI did with HP about VMS. VSI now "owns" VMS, do development and releases. Support, and all that. However, VSI are not free to release the sources to VMS without HP saying so. (Or that is how I've understood the agreement anyway.) Another thing that I don't know is if XX2247 would possibly be required to pay a fee to HP for each license sold. It might be, which would make it hard to even give licenses for binary distributions tricky. And there are things in the sources that could be claimed to still be relevant. Such as RMS-11, which in a further developed form is still sold as a part of VMS. 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

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Al Kossow wrote: Well, XX2247 is at least related to the KEY to the problem, . . . :-) Unfortunately, although nobody might be willing to find out the details, somebody might be willing to go to the effort/expense of researching it in order to file a lawsuit, . . .

By the way, a draft of the post which follows was made available to Johnny over 12 hours ago. Some clarifications were made, but none of the facts that I mention have changed Just to set the record straight from my point of view (I very much doubt that either Johnny, Al or Dave will see it this way, but ...): Actually, I really don't specifically know any of the actual details which means that all I know about is the information provided by other individuals that Mentec USA sold what it owned to XX2247 LLC when Mentec USA stopped doing business. The other information is that Dave Carroll owns XX2247 LLC. And finally, the most important aspect of the information provided by other individuals is that when DEC made the agreement with Mentec, DEC retained ultimate control over the IP and it is very possible that for every license that Mentec gives out, DEC or its successors, which means Compaq followed now by HP must receive a specific amount of compensation. If that is the situation, then it would be rather straight forward at this point to exempt non-commercial and educational uses, especially since HP already participates in a program for VMS. By the way, in the above two paragraphs, I changed the word "rumours" (in the draft I sent to Johnny) to information provided by other individuals. Will HP do that? From all indications, it seems VERY doubtful since at this point it would cost HP the services of a lawyer and there would be no return. Good will on the part of the public no longer seems very important, so again, it seems doubtful about what HP might ever do. --------------------------------------------------------------- I digress a bit with some information which may be of interest! By the way, over a decade ago, I did some Y2K work for a TSX-Plus system which resulted in the purchase of an RT-11 and TSX-Plus licenses. And while I was able to manage the paper work for the TSX-Plus license, Mentec did not even respond to my many inquiries. I was not only unable to buy an RT-11 license from Mentec, Mentec would not even reply at all in respect to anything about the purchase of an RT-11 license, including the rather important question of the cost. The company for which I did the Y2K work is one of the largest in Canada and the name is known by everyone in Canada. I have no idea why Mentec refused to respond, but there is not much that can be done when a USA company decides to ignore requests for information in order to make a legitimate purchase. By the way, over two decades ago, I had a somewhat similar difficulty with DEC in respect of RT-11 licenses and software. By then, DEC had probably effectively shut down its RT-11 development group. When I mentioned that a new version of RT-11 that had just been delivered was under warranty and needed some bugs fixed, DEC was not even interested in finding out what the bug was, let alone in fixing the bug. Again, the company that I was consulting for was one of the largest in Canada. I mention these two experiences with DEC and Mentec since those experiences may have resulted in my being known by either DEC or Mentec, or both, as a difficult individual to deal with since I insisted on reputable adherence to the warranty which DEC provided plus up front details of what would be involved in the acquisition of an RT-11 license. Back to the reply to Johnny. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the past I have attempted to contact Johnny and while Johnny at least does respond to my many questions, Johnny doesn't know much more than I do. Except that it seems likely that Johnny and Al do discuss things some of the time and they probably both feel that my inquiries are causing a problem. As far as I can remember, Al may have responded to some of my questions in the past, but no longer even acknowledges that I have made a direct attempt to contact him. As for Dave Carroll, a few years ago I managed to locate where he worked and left a voice-mail. I asked Dave to return my call. I have never spoken to Dave nor have I ever received an e-mail The rest of my response is in regard ONLY to RT-11 since I have almost no contact with RSX-11 and only the occasional contact with RSTS/E. As far as trying various ways to put RT-11 into the public domain, about the only aspect of that which is explicitly true is a bug list for RT-11. Even that I don't host by myself, so if the internet site where the bug list is available had not make the bug list available, then no one else would know about those bugs in RT-11. And equally, I could have just included the Bug List in a normal post such as this one and the Bug List would then have been in the classiccmp archive. In any case, after a decade of requesting help and contributions of additional bugs in RT-11, there have been exactly ZERO contributions. In respect for the IP for RT-11 and having "tried various ways to put it into the public domain", based on the understanding of US law in that regard, doing so (at least as far as the arm chair legal opinions that have been expressed over the years) is actually impossible since the owner of any IP does not EVER need to take any action in the past against violators to take action in the present OR the future. At least, if you ask Bill Gunshannon and Johnny, I strongly suspect that will be the legal position of both individuals and I also suspect that for all practical purposes, both of them are probably correct. Even the present use of the SimH emulator to run specified versions of PDP-11 operating systems under a license by Mentec seems mute at this point since, as has been pointed out by a few arm chair lawyers, DEC no longer owns SimH. Consequently, it does not seem to be legal at this time to run any versions of the PDP-11 operating systems under SimH which were made available on a number of internet sites where there are no restrictions to download the image files for these PDP-11 operating systems. Of course, that also means that those same image files can also be run on real DEC hardware and that was possible immediately and neither DEC nor Mentec made any complaint at the time about that aspect. Curious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, in the past, I don't believe that I have done anything different that anyone else has done in respect of RT-11, and probably less of it than at least a few individuals. I have probably asked questions and in many cases answered questions in respect of using RT-11 when inquiries were made. From my point of view, the single biggest part in the situation with regard to the IP for RT-11 is that all of the files for the binary distribution for V05.07 of RT-11 have been available on the internet for download by any individual who has taken sufficient interest to know where these files could be found. Further, even the critical Commented Source Code files for all but two of the applications have also been available. What made the major change in the past month was that even the link address to the internet site was recently made available for files which are available on the same internet site such that anyone interested in looking at those files could have found the files referred to above. I have VERY privately advised a few individuals of the existence of these files, in one case that advice was provided many years ago. So if the attempt on trying "to put it into the public domain" has taken place at all, I have certainly not been the individual to make the most successful attempt. I do have an opinion as to why and under what circumstances the above files were made available for download at that internet site, but since I have not been able to verify my opinion with Dave Carroll or Al Kossow, there seems no point in doing do since it is probably wrong. If I felt confident of my conclusions, as opposed to what Rod Smallwood suggested about 2 hours ago in his reference to Deep Throat, then I would have shared that conclusion. PROBABLY, ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT going to happen after almost 20 years when the expense to HP would be large and there is no public benefit for doing so at this point. Actually, in my opinion, I have been reasonably quiet about the whole situation and would have been even more so had I been advised about what is actually the true situation and what my contribution could be to help. And while I do provide specific help with RT-11 questions for individuals who are asking for that help, those individuals were already using RT-11 in whatever capacity before I answered. As for having made bug fixes and enhancements to programs which are in the RT-11 binary distributions, I believe I have followed a long line of individuals who did so in the past. Note that in my case, not one person has even been interested enough to actually ask for these programs. So I doubt very much that there has been any real harm. And since I am not the only person who has made changes to such programs (one individual made the changes and made the final executable program available for download on the internet), it seems rather interesting to say that I am using guerilla tactics when I am doing that same thing as others, but not making the changes available on a public basis. I invite any and all responses to this post to classiccmp and would appreciate a correction in respect of any facts which are incorrect. I certainly realize that I don't know what is actually in the original agreement between DEC and Mentec which was made around 1994. I do know that most of my attempts in the past to obtain information and help for problems with RT-11 have not met with any satisfaction from my point of view as far as both DEC and Mentec are concerned. On the other hand, my view of RT-11 software is that it is of the very best quality. And while there are still bugs in RT-11 and there are many enhancements that should be available, the only real complaints I have are: (a) The Date word has the bits for the year separated with the 5 low order bits and the two high order bits making up a 7-bit field for the year which obviously can't be used in sorting for the date as is (b) DEC would never share the outstanding bugs in the RT-11 operating system - while I do agree that their point of view was both valid and reasonable, that was still disappointing since it makes it so difficult to fix bugs that are unknown Jerome Fine

Upon reading all the discussion over the past three days, I am extremely interested in the overall tone of the discourse. While there has been rather passionate argument at times, there does not seem to be any of the caustic comments that we have seen on occasion in the past. Congratulations EVERYONE!!!!!!! In addition, since I have never been directly involved with extremely large companies who employ thousands of actual software developers, my point of view will obviously be less experienced about some matters than others. On the other hand, I believe I have seen enough software practices and development of the past 55 years that I have at least some degree of understanding of the issues. However, there has been one aspect that seems to have been lost amidst all of the legal points vs issues of abandonware. The points which I will raise are concerned uniquely with the aspects which relate to IP rights over software vs what seems, at the moment in all legislation which is relevant, to the total lack of any responsibilities by the owner of the software. This list has members who are in a unique position to understand and evaluate and perhaps be in a position to formulate changes in the legal status for the IP in regards to software in order to bring in some balance between rights and responsibilities. I realize that the very large companies such as Microsoft and Apple would probably take immediate exception to having any responsibilities imposed. But perhaps it would actually be in their self-interest. As just an interesting aspect with respect to copyright and the IP associated with copyright, it is impossible to be given a copyright over a book which is to be published without providing every single character, comma and space that the book is composed of. Perhaps all software should be required to be handled in the same manner. In return for having copyright, perhaps all software should be required to make available and publish the actual source code so that the responsibilities which I outline below are also satisfied. Perhaps in lieu of publishing the source code, the owner of the copyright and the IP would continue to hold those rights only as long as the responsibilities were satisfied. Just a starting thought for the discussion, Note that with all the tools available to convert executable code back into source code, the owners of the copyright and the IP would only be making it less difficult to look at the code when the source code is also available. So as a start to seeing if the discussion might lead somewhere, I will start by looking at three important areas in software: SECURITY OF THE SOFTWARE The days when the internet was composed of only individuals and companies who all knew each other and were not going to cause harm to any of the members are long gone, if they were ever truly present. If the code for all software was published, then the actual security would consist of the way in which the passwords were managed. The days of backdoors and buffer overflows would rapidly disappear and many more eyes would be available to evaluate that aspect. And software would, of necessity, be required to start with security as a primary goal rather than being added at the end. BUGS IN THE SOFTWARE Most large software packages have some software bugs. If all of the code had to be published, it would be much easier for expert individuals to find and fix the bugs. Note that some bugs are security risks while others are not. Intense focus on security would allow for bugs in that area to be discovered and caught more quickly. But other bugs would be much more easily found and fixed if the source code is available. ENHANCEMENTS TO THE PROGRAM To often it takes users to protest for a long time for changes to be made. If code was written in a manner which allowed for the sharing of the revenues, the owner of the copyright and the IP could have a much more productive relationship and the end user would have much better software available. With the availability of the source code, anyone who is expert enough could enhance code which a short-sighted owner or an owner with a lack of resources neglected. While I don't think that even DECUS supported the sharing of revenue, it was certainly a powerful forum for enhancements to be made to DEC software. Suggestions are requested from everyone as to how the above three areas could become responsibilities of the owner of the copyright and the IP of software. Neglecting them, and any other areas, could be cause for requiring the transfer of the copyright and IP to others who are willing to taking on those responsibilities and perhaps the transfer price could be based on both a fraction of past profits and future profits with a scale that provides decreasing weight the further away in time those past profits and future profits occur. That would ensure that owners who are no longer prepared to support their software allow for an orderly transition. And when a given area of software is past its BEST BEFORE DATE and the profits vanish, any hobby users could begin to act without any legal problems. If somehow the software became profitable again, the original owners could still receive a portion of the new revenue based on how long the original owners had been inactive along with other factors. The point I am making is that perhaps instead of just complaining, a group could be formed which produces actual changes in the laws which govern software. Have any of the points I have mentioned been reasonable? Are there additional factors which need attention? If you think my approach is lacking in objectivity and substance, please advance you own point of view and suggest alternatives which will make a difference, not just keep the status quo. What is needed is enlightened self-interest on everyone's part as opposed to the solution which regards over fishing a given portion of the ocean until all the fish are gone as a satisfactory solution and time to move to a different location and repeat the same mistakes. Would it be possible to form a group which produces advice for changes in the laws that would be beneficial to all parties and provide owners of copyright and IP over software benefits at the same time that the users also benefit. In short a win-win situation under co-operation rather than the winner takes all approach. Jerome Fine

This is an interesting point, which I had not thought of, nor seen raised elsewhere, before. On the one hand, it's true in general that any system involving rights without associated responsibilities grows concomitant abuses. (Responsibilities without corresponding rights is a different bag of problems, but not very relevant here.) On the other hand, you need to be very careful exactly what responsibilities you impose, or this could have an even more deadening effect on software creation than existing IP law. Of course, depending on your biases and what software creation would be impacted by the details in question, you may consider such deadening a Good Thing. (For example, I personally wouldn't mind making it more expensive to create, or at least commercially distribute, closed-source software, provided it doesn't also impact open-source software.) I suspect this is a case of "ask five people, get at least six answers". This is a specious argument; not all software has anything to do with the Internet. (I don't think this will stop being so, either, despite all the Internet-of-things advocates trying to, basically, do that.) Most? All, I would say. I doubt there exists nontrivial software without bugs - and I'm not sure about trivial software, either, though it's possible a few of the smallest examples qualify. a substantial, possibly unjustifiable, cost in some cases. Consider someone making, oh, say, thermostats. They don't distribute their software except embedded within their devices. Why should they have to provide for software distribution channels? Consider the same thing, only instead of ROM code and a microprocessor core, they have a FPGA that loads its config from flash. Consider the same thing, only the FPGA config is in mask-programmed ROM. Consider it with a mask-programmed gate array instead of an FPGA. Consider the same thing implemented with discrete logic. Where do you draw the line between "software" and "not software"? Why is this a bad thing? In some cases it can be, certainly, but I'm far from convinced it always is. Your argument here, again, appears to be designed around the "end user running software on a general-purpose desktop computer" paradigm. You need to take into account the rest of the software out there if you want your changeas to be a serious contender in the real world - or at least you need to explain why it's OK to ignore those things. There's another point: copyright applies to a lot more than software. You need to make sure your changes are at least tolerable for other copyrighted things, or else you need to somehow manage to draw a line between "software" and "not-software" (a notoriously hard line to draw; consider the famous t-shirt which had an implementation of RSA bar-code printed onto it). I doubt it, largely because it seems to me that at least two of the affected groups have more or less diametrically opposed interests. (Mind you, I'd love to be proved wrong in this regard.) /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

On 11/10/15 2:10 PM, Jay Jaeger wrote: Thanks a ton for taking the time to make this available. Time for some debugging! - Josh