21 Aug
2015
21 Aug
'15
11:21 a.m.
This discussion on the legality of sharing manuals, PDFs, etc. leads me to think about the
vintage computing hobby as a whole. While we all encourage the hobby to grow, the
downside is that as it does, the software copyright holders may start to take notice. As
a developer of modern systems who expects to be paid for my work (except what I share with
the community of course) I am in a conundrum because the hobby cannot succeed without the
large collection of easily accessible vintage software available yet there is no way to
?buy? most of it today. But, we would also not expect or would we pay 1980s retail
prices. I know some generous copyright owners have allowed unrestricted use of their old
software, like Roy Soltoff from Misosys, but many others have not or have disappeared.
I?m fairly new to the hobby so maybe this has already been hashed out years ago. Just
wondering what the community thinks.
21 Aug
21 Aug
11:27 a.m.
On 2015-08-21 17:21, Peter Cetinski wrote:
This discussion on the legality of sharing manuals,
PDFs, etc. leads me to think about the vintage computing hobby as a whole. While we all
encourage the hobby to grow, the downside is that as it does, the software copyright
holders may start to take notice. As a developer of modern systems who expects to be paid
for my work (except what I share with the community of course) I am in a conundrum because
the hobby cannot succeed without the large collection of easily accessible vintage
software available yet there is no way to ?buy? most of it today. But, we would also not
expect or would we pay 1980s retail prices. I know some generous copyright owners have
allowed unrestricted use of their old software, like Roy Soltoff from Misosys, but many
others have not or have disappeared. I?m fairly new to the hobby so maybe this has
already been hashed out years ago. Just wondering what the community thinks.
My opinion is that people should not try to pretend that their actions
are legal when they are not. While I support work to preserve things, we
really need to get permission from copyright owners before just letting
thing out freely.
I know DEC made a general permission to copy and distribute out-of-print
manuals. They also made some software freely available. I believe pretty
much all PDP-8 software is in there. Some restricted distributions of
PDP-11 software was also made available, but the majority of PDP-11
software is still under copyright and with no permission to redistribute
(DEC sold it). PDP-10 software I think were sold off as well. Not sure
about other parts.
And I don't know much about anything for non-DEC stuff. So while I hope
there are copies of stuff around, think some before redistributing it.
Johnny
11:42 a.m.
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt
at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
On 2015-08-21 17:21, Peter Cetinski wrote:
Please remember that, in general, a general permission to copy is NOT a waiver of
copyright. So those manuals for which there is a permission to copy ARE still under
copyright (assuming they were in the first place, which is likely). What you have there
is a specific permission granted by the owner (the copyright holder), which allows you to
do the things granted, but doesn't allow you to do other things. For example, there
may be permission to copy and distribute the document as it stands; that permission may
(or may not) include permission to OCR it and distributed the resulting text in different
forms. But it may very well disallow creating derived works.
On the other hand, if an owner did indeed release a work to the public domain, then you
can do anything you want with that work.
This may not matter very much in practice, but if you want to apply copyright correctly,
you'll want to be careful to use terms like "public domain" and "still
under copyright" accurately.
paul
This discussion on the legality of sharing
manuals, PDFs, etc. leads me to think about the vintage computing hobby as a whole. While
we all encourage the hobby to grow, the downside is that as it does, the software
copyright holders may start to take notice. As a developer of modern systems who expects
to be paid for my work (except what I share with the community of course) I am in a
conundrum because the hobby cannot succeed without the large collection of easily
accessible vintage software available yet there is no way to ?buy? most of it today. But,
we would also not expect or would we pay 1980s retail prices. I know some generous
copyright owners have allowed unrestricted use of their old software, like Roy Soltoff
from Misosys, but many others have not or have disappeared. I?m fairly new to the hobby
so maybe this has already been hashed out years ago. Just wondering what the community
thinks.
My opinion is that people should not try to pretend that their actions are legal when
they are not. While I support work to preserve things, we really need to get permission
from copyright owners before just letting thing out freely.
I know DEC made a general permission to copy and distribute out-of-print manuals. They
also made some software freely available. I believe pretty much all PDP-8 software is in
there. Some restricted distributions of PDP-11 software was also made available, but the
majority of PDP-11 software is still under copyright and with no permission to
redistribute (DEC sold it).
11:45 a.m.
On 2015-08-21 17:42, Paul Koning wrote:
Right. Thanks for pointing it out, Paul. The DEC permission to reproduce
and distribute out-of-print manuals was in no way a waiver of DECs
copyright, and the documents are all still under copyright.
Johnny
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
On 2015-08-21 17:21, Peter Cetinski wrote:
Please remember that, in general, a general permission to copy is NOT a waiver of
copyright. So those manuals for which there is a permission to copy ARE still under
copyright (assuming they were in the first place, which is likely). What you have there
is a specific permission granted by the owner (the copyright holder), which allows you to
do the things granted, but doesn't allow you to do other things. For example, there
may be permission to copy and distribute the document as it stands; that permission may
(or may not) include permission to OCR it and distributed the resulting text in different
forms. But it may very well disallow creating derived works.
On the other hand, if an owner did indeed release a work to the public domain, then you
can do anything you want with that work.
This may not matter very much in practice, but if you want to apply copyright correctly,
you'll want to be careful to use terms like "public domain" and "still
under copyright" accurately. This discussion on the legality of sharing
manuals, PDFs, etc. leads me to think about the vintage computing hobby as a whole. While
we all encourage the hobby to grow, the downside is that as it does, the software
copyright holders may start to take notice. As a developer of modern systems who expects
to be paid for my work (except what I share with the community of course) I am in a
conundrum because the hobby cannot succeed without the large collection of easily
accessible vintage software available yet there is no way to ?buy? most of it today. But,
we would also not expect or would we pay 1980s retail prices. I know some generous
copyright owners have allowed unrestricted use of their old software, like Roy Soltoff
from Misosys, but many others have not or have disappeared. I?m fairly new to the hobby
so maybe this has already been hashed out years ago. Just wondering what the community
thinks.
My opinion is that people should not try to pretend that their actions are legal when
they are not. While I support work to preserve things, we really need to get permission
from copyright owners before just letting thing out freely.
I know DEC made a general permission to copy and distribute out-of-print manuals. They
also made some software freely available. I believe pretty much all PDP-8 software is in
there. Some restricted distributions of PDP-11 software was also made available, but the
majority of PDP-11 software is still under copyright and with no permission to
redistribute (DEC sold it). 
1:58 p.m.
On 8/21/2015 10:27 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
And I don't know much about anything for non-DEC stuff. So while I hope
there are copies of stuff around, think some before redistributing it.
Johnny
Some other licenses (or lack thereof) that make software readily
available that I am aware of include:
Most IBM Software through MVS 3.8j was issued without copyright. Once
the Amdahl 470 came along, IBM started adding IP to their operating
system, and licensed it. So, this includes software for the
709/7090/7094, 1401, 1410, 1130 and System/360 and System/370.
Most of the System/360 and System/370 software can be found on links
from various Hercules emulator sites. Older software
can be harder to
track down, but usually responds well to Google.
The DEC VMS Hobbyist license (though this gets a little confusing with
respect to the PAKs and obtaining media sometimes).
Burroughs MCP MARK XIII Hobbyist license, via UNISYS:
http://www.phkimpel.us/B5500/webSite/Unisys-B5500-Software-License.pdf
The licenses involved in the SimH software sets for various machines.
(See each software "pack").
The Unix archive at the Unix Heritage Society / PDP Unix Preservation
Society, via a non-commercial use license negotiated with SCO.
http://www.tuhs.org/ (but the link to the SCO license page is broken,
because SCO is gone).
http://www.mckusick.com/csrg/calder-lic.pdf (BSD)
And probably many many more.
JRJ
3:41 p.m.
On 8/21/15 10:58 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
And probably many many more.
CHM has educational non-commercal agreements for the following:
Apollo software from HP
68K based 9000 software from HP
21xx/1000 software from HP
BTOS from Unisys
Alto software from Xerox PARC
And there are a string of source code releases that Len Shustek
has spearheaded, including MacPaint/Quickdraw, Apple 2 DOS, APL
Word for Windows, EA Deluxe Paint, Photoshop, and MSDOS, which
can be found at http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm
11:47 a.m.
This discussion on the legality of sharing manuals,
PDFs, etc. leads me to t$
Personally, I'm ambivalent about it. Or, more precisely, my opinion
varies depending on factors not stated in what you wrote.
I know some generous copyright owners have allowed
unrestricted use
of their old software, like Roy Soltoff from Misosys, but many others
have not or have disappeared.
The major cases where I consider such things acceptable are where the
successors-in-interest of the original copyright holder either can't be
identified or located (and I mean with a reasonable level of effort,
not "oh, I did a quick Google and didn't find anyone") or demonstrate
convincingly that they don't care. That last can take many forms; in
roughly decreasing levels of comfort (for me), it can be a rerelease
with a more liberal license, it can be a letter from the relevant
department to someone like bitsavers, or it can be just continued
inaction in the face of well-publicized and highly accessible copies on
things like bitsavers.
There is also - to me! - a difference between something like ripping
off a manual and redistributing it with the "justification" of "they
did it first" or "they did worse", on the one hand, or keeping a
private archive of such things, to make sure the information is not
actually lost for the future, on the other.
/~\ 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
11:52 a.m.
There is also - to me! - a difference between
something like ripping
off a manual and redistributing it with the "justification" of "they
did it first" or "they did worse", on the one hand, or keeping a
private archive of such things, to make sure the information is not
actually lost for the future, on the other.
Why private? More risk of loss if it isn't distributed.
12:01 p.m.
On 2015-08-21 17:52, ethan at 757.org wrote:
It's a balance between data being lost, and violating copyrights. I am
sortof aligned with der Mouse here. If I have something that is
copyrighted, I do not want to contribute to spreading it without
permissions. But I also do not want it to be lost. Many times it is
things which I do have legally myself, so I don't even feel bad about
it. If, at some point, the copyright holder decides that it's ok to
redistribute, then I can help people who are looking for it.
Johnny
There is also
- to me! - a difference between something like ripping
off a manual and redistributing it with the "justification" of "they
did it first" or "they did worse", on the one hand, or keeping a
private archive of such things, to make sure the information is not
actually lost for the future, on the other.
Why private? More risk of loss if it isn't distributed.
1:10 p.m.
It's a balance between data being lost, and
violating copyrights. I am sortof
aligned with der Mouse here. If I have something that is copyrighted, I do
not want to contribute to spreading it without permissions. But I also do not
want it to be lost. Many times it is things which I do have legally myself,
so I don't even feel bad about it. If, at some point, the copyright holder
decides that it's ok to redistribute, then I can help people who are looking
for it.
In the case of hoarding crusty computer stuff, it's by far and large past
the end of it's useful life. The equipment isn't being run commercially,
it isn't being used to make money, and the software authors aren't around
to support sales of software for the machines. IF they were, I doubt many
people would buy it because once again, end of it's useful service life.
It's now museum relics, and a handful of people trying to preserve the
stuff before it is gone.
The internet doesn't remember all either, stuff is lost from the internet.
Wikipedia deletes pages they find boring or low traffic. Privately owned
servers crash, get hacked, or owners loose interest and move on to other
projects.
I don't really see archiving old paper manuals and magnetic media as a big
deal.
I *DO* have friends that are interested in vintage computing but work in
jobs where any copying of any software that isn't strictly allowed by law
is a no-no, and they're pretty much stuck. Own a couple of computers but
can't do much because it's difficult to buy software for Commodore
64 (especially development tools) and stuff. I think it's madness but
gotta feed the landlord/bankers.
-- Ethan O'Toole
1:54 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, ethan at 757.org wrote:
I *DO* have friends that are interested in vintage
computing but work in jobs
where any copying of any software that isn't strictly allowed by law is a
no-no, and they're pretty much stuck. Own a couple of computers but can't do
much because it's difficult to buy software for Commodore 64 (especially
development tools) and stuff. I think it's madness but gotta feed the
landlord/bankers.
They must be getting paid pretty well if they're allowing their employer
to perform random inspections of their homes and personal computers.
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_!
12:25 p.m.
There is also
- to me! - a difference between something like ripping
off a manual and redistributing it [and] keeping a private archive
of such things, to make sure the information is not [lost]
Why private? More risk
of loss if it isn't distributed. 
12:58 p.m.
So what is the lifetime of a software copyright ?
On 21/08/2015 17:25, Mouse wrote:
What Johnny said, essentially: it's where
I fall on the tradeoff
between copyright violation and risk of loss. (For some things. Where
I fall on that spectrum varies from case to case, as I outlined, all
the way from things like currently-live commercial licensed binary-only
software, which I don't tolerate on my machines, to things like
software I wrote and released to the public domain, which of course I
have no question about keeping around.)
/~\ 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
There is also - to me! - a difference between
something like ripping
off a manual and redistributing it [and] keeping a private archive
of such things, to make sure the information is not [lost]
Why private? More risk
of loss if it isn't distributed.
1:03 p.m.
On Aug 21, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rod Smallwood
<rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> wrote:
So what is the lifetime of a software copyright ?
The same as any other copyright. It depends on the country, but in general the answer is
"very long". In the USA, recently copyrights have been extended repeatedly, in
what has been referred to as the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act". (It's
called that because it was crafted to ensure that no Disney movie copyright will expire.)
paul
1:11 p.m.
Yes OK and "very long" would be?
On 21/08/2015 18:03, Paul Koning wrote:
On Aug 21,
2015, at 12:58 PM, Rod Smallwood <rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> wrote:
So what is the lifetime of a software copyright ?
The same as any other copyright.
It depends on the country, but in general the answer is "very long". In the
USA, recently copyrights have been extended repeatedly, in what has been referred to as
the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act". (It's called that because it was crafted
to ensure that no Disney movie copyright will expire.)
paul
1:18 p.m.
Wikipedia has a lot more detail, but from what it says, in the USA the answer is 75 years
from publication, if copyright was in effect at the beginning of 1978 or if the work was
created since then.
paul
On Aug 21, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Rod Smallwood
<rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> wrote:
Yes OK and "very long" would be?
On 21/08/2015 18:03, Paul Koning wrote:
On Aug
21, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rod Smallwood <rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> wrote:
So what is the lifetime of a software copyright ?
The same as any other copyright.
It depends on the country, but in general the answer is "very long". In the
USA, recently copyrights have been extended repeatedly, in what has been referred to as
the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act". (It's called that because it was crafted
to ensure that no Disney movie copyright will expire.)
paul
1:28 p.m.
On 2015-08-21 19:18, Paul Koning wrote:
Wikipedia has a lot more detail, but from what it
says, in the USA the answer is 75 years from publication, if copyright was in effect at
the beginning of 1978 or if the work was created since then.
I believe the USA signed the Berne convention (although pretty recently
compared to when it was written). And then it's 75 years from
publication (I think) for companies, but 75 years from the death of the
author when the copyright owner is a person.
(It used to be 50 years, but when the 50th anniversary of Hitlers death
came about, they extended it to 75 years, to keep Mein Kampf away from
the presses... :-) )
Johnny
paul
On Aug 21, 2015, at 1:11 PM, Rod Smallwood
<rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> wrote:
Yes OK and "very long" would be?
On 21/08/2015 18:03, Paul Koning wrote:
On Aug
21, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rod Smallwood <rodsmallwood52 at btinternet.com> wrote:
So what is the lifetime of a software copyright ?
The same as any other copyright.
It depends on the country, but in general the answer is "very long". In the
USA, recently copyrights have been extended repeatedly, in what has been referred to as
the "Mickey Mouse Protection Act". (It's called that because it was crafted
to ensure that no Disney movie copyright will expire.)
paul
1:31 p.m.
On 08/21/2015 10:11 AM, Rod Smallwood wrote:
Yes OK and "very long" would be?
It varies by country. In the case of the USA, 95 years from publication
(for older works) Other countries employ the author's life+x years
(usually 50 or 70)--live to a ripe old age and your copyright can run
for a very long time.
In the USA, the rule of thumb is that you're generally safe with works
published before 1923, which, I imagine does not include much computer
software.
--Chuck
1:44 p.m.
And...
We have a new question. What would have been the first piece of
copyrightable software?
Rod
On 21/08/2015 18:31, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 08/21/2015 10:11 AM, Rod Smallwood wrote:
Yes OK and "very long" would be?
It varies by country. In the case of the USA, 95 years from
publication (for older works) Other countries employ the author's
life+x years (usually 50 or 70)--live to a ripe old age and your
copyright can run for a very long time.
In the USA, the rule of thumb is that you're generally safe with works
published before 1923, which, I imagine does not include much computer
software.
--Chuck
5:34 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Rod Smallwood wrote:
And...
We have a new question. What would have been the first piece of
copyrightable software?
Combined with the issue that many lawyers and judges did not consider
software to BE copyrightable.
And then, there was a general consensus that the code was copyrightable,
but not the performance. You could legally create your own Puckman
program, so long as you didn't use any of their code. That led to
projects such as Adam Osborne's Paperback Software, which did clean-room
writing of duplicates of popular software. Until Lotus stomped him.
That led to Look&Stink protection, sometimes extending to the sequence and
names of the choices in a normal "Files" menu.
At the time, if Adam were to have been a few months earlier in acquiring
any of the rubble of VisiCorp, it could have been all over!
Delrina was not upheld on their "parody" defense of Opus & Bill shooting
flying toasters, in which the "victim" was an infringer of an album cover.
Consider Xerox in the Windoze/Mac copyright battle!
Many have always considered fundamental concepts to not be copyrightable.
Where would MICROS~1 be if Gary Kildall were to have been litigious?
(Novell's acquisition of DRI was solely for the IP rights, as a "Get Out
Of Jail Free" card against any Microsoft attack)
6:25 p.m.
Where would
MICROS~1 be if Gary Kildall were to have been litigious?
How so? Digital Research spurned IBM, and would have
had to take IBM
on as well as Microsoft. Litigious or not, it would have been a
seriously uphill battle.
The influence and basis on, of MS-DOS and CP/M is undenied.
In fact, the clear copyright issue was apparently why IBM chose to ALSO
sell CP/M-86. However, there are disagreements about whether the pricing
choice was an IBM effort to sabotage the CP/M-86 sales, or a serious error
by DRI. (I believe the latter)
But, Gary (and Xerox Parc) was not litigious.
6:48 p.m.
On 8/21/2015 5:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote:
Influence does not necessarily constitute intellectual property. If it
were, DEC could have sued the pants off of Kildall for concepts stolen
Where would MICROS~1 be if Gary Kildall were to have
been litigious?
How so? Digital Research spurned IBM, and would
have had to take IBM
on as well as Microsoft. Litigious or not, it would have been a
seriously uphill battle.
The influence and basis on, of MS-DOS and CP/M is undenied.
from their operating systems. IBM likewise. Kildall
certainly didn't
invent very much. By the same logic of "influence",
AT&T and probably
others could have sued the pants off of Microsoft and IBM for the
influence UNIX had on MS-DOS 2.0 (just look at the list of system
calls). But, the reality would have been that there was nothing to base
a case on. And on and on and on. (Back in those days there was also no
idea of software patents).
Even if Kildall had been litigious, it would not have made any
difference to where Microsoft ended up. Even if he would have had a
case, he could simply have been bought out.
In fact, the clear copyright issue was apparently why
IBM chose to ALSO
sell CP/M-86. However, there are disagreements about whether the
pricing choice was an IBM effort to sabotage the CP/M-86 sales, or a
serious error by DRI. (I believe the latter)
Nonsense. Absolute rubbish. Not a chance. There was no copyright
issue, not in any way. Find me a written reference that says otherwise,
and I might change my mind.
The written records I have read state that Kildall finally came to his
senses way way late, and realized what a market opportunity the IBM PC
represented. But by then he was too late. By every account I have
read, he blew off a meeting arranged by Gates that would have been a
chance to sell his operating system, so IBM asked Gates to see if he
could find an alternative elsewhere and found what eventually became
MS-DOS, and the rest is history, as they say. Even had IBM been somehow
responsible for the disparity in the pricing, DRI could have marketed it
on their own anyway. The truth of the matter seems to be that Kildall
just didn't have any business acumen, and Gates, who did, rolled right
over him after he blew his chance.
But, Gary (and Xerox Parc) was not litigious.
Xerox was not necessarily not ligitious. They just had no clue about
the value of the technology they had, and failed to protect it in any
meaningful way. That is also a matter of written record.
JRJ
7:14 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote:
The written records I have read state that Kildall
finally came to his
senses way way late, and realized what a market opportunity the IBM PC
represented. But by then he was too late. By every account I have
read, he blew off a meeting arranged by Gates that would have been a
chance to sell his operating system,
Yes
There are conflicting accounts of what happened, but it is undeniable that
he failed to take advantage of an incredible opportunity.
Most of the accounts have gaps in credibility. Flying up to Oakland to
deliver some documentation is certainly NOT a task that couldn't have been
delegated. Kildall's defenders make too much of IBM's NDAs; some of his
dtractors portray it as a purely cultural clash. A few years ago, I went
and visited the house, and I can easily see that.
so IBM asked Gates to see if he
could find an alternative elsewhere and found what eventually became
MS-DOS, and the rest is history, as they say. Even had IBM been somehow
responsible for the disparity in the pricing, DRI could have marketed it
on their own anyway. The truth of the matter seems to be that Kildall
just didn't have any business acumen, and Gates, who did, rolled right
over him after he blew his chance.
Yes.
Kildall didn't have any business acumen, and Gates did.
7:18 p.m.
On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
In fact, the clear copyright issue was apparently why IBM chose to ALSO sell CP/M-86.
However, there are disagreements about whether the pricing choice was an IBM effort to
sabotage the CP/M-86 sales, or a serious error by DRI. (I believe the latter)
The way I've heard the story before, was that Kildall was surprised when he finally
saw the price sheet for the pricing of CP/M-86 vs PC-DOS. I guess we can either interpret
that as he priced it too high and had no idea what MS were charging for PC-DOS, or that
IBM deliberately priced them out of the market.
7:34 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Geoff Oltmans wrote:
The way I've heard the story before, was that
Kildall was surprised when
he finally saw the price sheet for the pricing of CP/M-86 vs PC-DOS. I
I've heard that, but it was from people who did not think that the
original contact with IBM was mishandled.
guess we can either interpret that as he priced it too
high and had no
idea what MS were charging for PC-DOS, or that IBM deliberately priced
them out of the market.
It could have been either. I tend towards thinking that it was DRI's
mistake. I do not have the business experience nor acumen to have any
idea how much lead time there was on pricing, nor how long a price change
would take.
When the PC came out (August 1981), I got MS-DOS, is was the only thing
available. I assumed that once it was available that CP/M-86 would become
the standard. When it came out, at a high price, I STILL thought that it
would become the standard eventually, but stayed with MS-DOS waiting for
that. I really don't think that I was alone in that thinking. But, the
long delay, "waiting for CP/M-86 to become the standard", was long enough
for MS-DOS to become solidly entrenched, and in the early versions, there
was no obvious advantage to justify switching. When CP/M-86 came down in
price, it was too late. (and maybe it should have come down ALL the way
to MS-DOS price ($60? V $40 was the later price))
7:59 p.m.
On 22 August 2015 at 01:34, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:
and maybe it should have come down ALL the way to
MS-DOS price
Arguably -- and I'm aware it's stretching a point -- it did, in the
form of DR-DOS.
--
Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven
MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven
Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)
6:28 p.m.
It also brings up another issue. When they did finally get some legal
stuff into place (circa 1988 over here) was it retrospective.?
If not then by definition anything prior is not protected and my be
freely distributed.
Rod
On 21/08/2015 22:34, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Rod Smallwood wrote:
And...
We have a new question. What would have been the first piece of
copyrightable software?
Combined with the issue that many lawyers and judges did not consider
software to BE copyrightable.
And then, there was a general consensus that the code was
copyrightable, but not the performance. You could legally create your
own Puckman program, so long as you didn't use any of their code.
That led to projects such as Adam Osborne's Paperback Software, which
did clean-room writing of duplicates of popular software. Until Lotus
stomped him.
That led to Look&Stink protection, sometimes extending to the sequence
and names of the choices in a normal "Files" menu.
At the time, if Adam were to have been a few months earlier in
acquiring any of the rubble of VisiCorp, it could have been all over!
Delrina was not upheld on their "parody" defense of Opus & Bill
shooting flying toasters, in which the "victim" was an infringer of an
album cover.
Consider Xerox in the Windoze/Mac copyright battle!
Many have always considered fundamental concepts to not be copyrightable.
Where would MICROS~1 be if Gary Kildall were to have been litigious?
(Novell's acquisition of DRI was solely for the IP rights, as a "Get
Out Of Jail Free" card against any Microsoft attack)
6:40 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Rod Smallwood wrote:
It also brings up another issue. When they did
finally get some legal stuff
into place (circa 1988 over here) was it retrospective.?
If not then by definition anything prior is not protected and my be freely
distributed.
If it were changes in the law, then it would NOT be retroactive unless
explicitly declaring itself to be.
HOWEVER, since it was "interpretation" of existing law, it would
intrinsically be retroactive, although there would be a presumption
that actions based on current consensus would be in good faith.
(NOT held true in Lotus V Paperback)
Fortunately, since the rulings seem to have tended to be
primarily injunctive rather than monetary damages, it has not created a
flood of old cases.
IANAL, do not rely on any of this.
8 p.m.
On Aug 21, 2015, at 7:06 PM, Geoff Oltmans
<oltmansg at gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
So it does, and that restriction is obeyed just as little as most other Constitutional
prohibitions.
paul
If it were changes in the law, then it would NOT be retroactive unless explicitly
declaring itself to be.
Different places are different, but the US constitution explicity prohibits ex post facto
laws. 
1:53 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 08/21/2015 10:11 AM, Rod Smallwood wrote:
...and works published before 1964 which were either not registered with
the US copyright office or which did not have their copyrights renewed.
Those require some research to determine their status.
Yes OK and "very long" would be?
It varies by country. In the case of the USA, 95 years from publication
(for older works) Other countries employ the author's life+x years
(usually 50 or 70)--live to a ripe old age and your copyright can run
for a very long time.
In the USA, the rule of thumb is that you're generally safe with works
published before 1923, which, I imagine does not include much computer
software. 
2:13 p.m.
Wanted to add that my opinion of "freeing" manuals, etc. does not mean I
am against Bitsavers or Internet Archive -- work that's done the right
way by professionals. My main gripe is when an individual takes
something that is still actively * for sale * (by the original
developer, no less) and the takes it upon themselves to give it away.
Whether people or the courts decide it's a "violation" or a crime,
either way, it's wrong.
2:26 p.m.
I think in response to sharing bits, a "better to ask for forgiveness rather than
permission" policy is as best as can be done, otherwise the hobby is completely
doomed.
I like how archive.org deals with it. If someone wants something taken down, do it by all
means!
Many current rights holders for this stuff may not even KNOW they are rights holders, and
for others, they may *want* to release something but cross licensing issues with other
companies (e.g. Licensed libraries) may prevent them.
By the time we get permission to share this stuff, much of it will be permanently lost.
So for now, I'll totally do illegal things. Because the law is shortsighted. And if a
rights holder asks me to stop, I'm happy to. And sometime when society sees the value
in all this, maybe we will get copyright reform.
Yar, mateys, I'll see you all on the high seas!
- Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:13, Evan Koblentz <evan at
snarc.net> wrote:
Wanted to add that my opinion of "freeing" manuals, etc. does not mean I am
against Bitsavers or Internet Archive -- work that's done the right way by
professionals. My main gripe is when an individual takes something that is still actively
* for sale * (by the original developer, no less) and the takes it upon themselves to give
it away. Whether people or the courts decide it's a "violation" or a crime,
either way, it's wrong.
2:31 p.m.
I should add- although I thought this was obvious, some people here take pedantry to the
next level:
*** I am strictly referring to software which is no longer generally available
commercially, which is the 98% case for the software for our machines. ****
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:26, Ian Finder <ian.finder
at gmail.com> wrote:
I think in response to sharing bits, a "better to ask for forgiveness rather than
permission" policy is as best as can be done, otherwise the hobby is completely
doomed.
I like how archive.org deals with it. If someone wants something taken down, do it by all
means!
Many current rights holders for this stuff may not even KNOW they are rights holders, and
for others, they may *want* to release something but cross licensing issues with other
companies (e.g. Licensed libraries) may prevent them.
By the time we get permission to share this stuff, much of it will be permanently lost.
So for now, I'll totally do illegal things. Because the law is shortsighted. And if a
rights holder asks me to stop, I'm happy to. And sometime when society sees the value
in all this, maybe we will get copyright reform.
Yar, mateys, I'll see you all on the high seas!
- Ian
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:13, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
>
> Wanted to add that my opinion of "freeing" manuals, etc. does not mean I am
against Bitsavers or Internet Archive -- work that's done the right way by
professionals. My main gripe is when an individual takes something that is still actively
* for sale * (by the original developer, no less) and the takes it upon themselves to give
it away. Whether people or the courts decide it's a "violation" or a crime,
either way, it's wrong.
2:33 p.m.
On 2015-08-21 20:31, Ian Finder wrote:
I should add- although I thought this was obvious,
some people here take pedantry to the next level:
*** I am strictly referring to software which is no longer generally available
commercially, which is the 98% case for the software for our machines. ****
Hmm, I didn't know that PDP-11 software was less than 2% of the software
under discussion here.
Johnny
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:26, Ian Finder <ian.finder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think in response to sharing bits, a "better to ask for forgiveness rather
than permission" policy is as best as can be done, otherwise the hobby is completely
doomed.
>
> I like how archive.org deals with it. If someone wants something taken down, do it by
all means!
>
> Many current rights holders for this stuff may not even KNOW they are rights holders,
and for others, they may *want* to release something but cross licensing issues with other
companies (e.g. Licensed libraries) may prevent them.
>
> By the time we get permission to share this stuff, much of it will be permanently
lost.
>
> So for now, I'll totally do illegal things. Because the law is shortsighted. And
if a rights holder asks me to stop, I'm happy to. And sometime when society sees the
value in all this, maybe we will get copyright reform.
>
> Yar, mateys, I'll see you all on the high seas!
>
> - Ian
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:13, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
>>
>> Wanted to add that my opinion of "freeing" manuals, etc. does not mean
I am against Bitsavers or Internet Archive -- work that's done the right way by
professionals. My main gripe is when an individual takes something that is still actively
* for sale * (by the original developer, no less) and the takes it upon themselves to give
it away. Whether people or the courts decide it's a "violation" or a crime,
either way, it's wrong.
2:54 p.m.
I would hazard a guess, Johnny, that whatever PDP-11 software you're referring to is
*indeed* well under 2% of the body of all the copyrighted software ever written for
computers we consider "vintage."
But if you'd like to maintain your tunnel vision on your specific interests and cases,
that's your prerogative.
This is an issue for all vintage computers.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:33, Johnny Billquist <bqt at
update.uu.se> wrote:
On 2015-08-21 20:31, Ian Finder wrote:
I should add- although I thought this was obvious, some people here take pedantry to the
next level:
*** I am strictly referring to software which is no longer generally available
commercially, which is the 98% case for the software for our machines. ****
Hmm, I didn't know that PDP-11 software was less than 2% of the software under
discussion here.
Johnny
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:26, Ian Finder <ian.finder at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think in response to sharing bits, a "better to ask for forgiveness rather
than permission" policy is as best as can be done, otherwise the hobby is completely
doomed.
>
> I like how archive.org deals with it. If someone wants something taken down, do it by
all means!
>
> Many current rights holders for this stuff may not even KNOW they are rights holders,
and for others, they may *want* to release something but cross licensing issues with other
companies (e.g. Licensed libraries) may prevent them.
>
> By the time we get permission to share this stuff, much of it will be permanently
lost.
>
> So for now, I'll totally do illegal things. Because the law is shortsighted. And
if a rights holder asks me to stop, I'm happy to. And sometime when society sees the
value in all this, maybe we will get copyright reform.
>
> Yar, mateys, I'll see you all on the high seas!
>
> - Ian
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:13, Evan Koblentz <evan at snarc.net> wrote:
>>
>> Wanted to add that my opinion of "freeing" manuals, etc. does not mean
I am against Bitsavers or Internet Archive -- work that's done the right way by
professionals. My main gripe is when an individual takes something that is still actively
* for sale * (by the original developer, no less) and the takes it upon themselves to give
it away. Whether people or the courts decide it's a "violation" or a crime,
either way, it's wrong.
1:50 p.m.
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Rod Smallwood wrote:
So what is the lifetime of a software copyright ?
You're going to die before it expires. Quite possibly your grand children
as well.
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_!
3291
days inactive
3292
days old
39 comments
17 participants
participants (17)
-
aek＠bitsavers.org -
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
bqt＠update.uu.se -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cube1＠charter.net -
ethan＠757.org -
evan＠snarc.net -
geneb＠deltasoft.com -
ian.finder＠gmail.com -
lproven＠gmail.com -
mouse＠Rodents-Montreal.ORG -
oltmansg＠gmail.com -
paulkoning＠comcast.net -
pete＠pski.net -
rodsmallwood52＠btinternet.com -
tothwolf＠concentric.net