> On Aug 21, 2015, at 7:06 PM, Geoff Oltmans wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>>
>> 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 pr
On 22 August 2015 at 01:34, Fred Cisin 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: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/
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.
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 bel
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 th
On Aug 21, 2015, at 5:40 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>
> 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.
On 8/21/2015 5:25 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
>>> Where would MICROS~1 be if Gary Kildall were to have been litigious?
>>
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> 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
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
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 Sm
Where would MICROS~1 be if Gary Kildall were to have been litigious?
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Jay Jaeger wrote:
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 8/21/2015 4:34 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> 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.
JRJ
Hardly a surprise I'm 67
On 21/08/2015 18:50, geneb wrote:
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.
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
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 s
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
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
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
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.
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
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
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, et...@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 diffi
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, 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 r
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/c
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
pu
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
fo
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 (althoug
> Yes OK and "very long" would be?
I am pretty sure that the original software for EDSAC would still be under
copyright
-tony
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
> wrote:
>
> Yes OK and "very long"
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
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,
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 legal
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 12:58 PM, Rod Smallwood
> 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 b
So what is the lifetime of a software copyright ?
On 21/08/2015 17:25, Mouse wrote:
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?
>> 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.
What Johnny said, essentially: it's
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 futur
On 2015-08-21 17:52, et...@757.org wrote:
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 inf
> 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 softw
On 2015-08-21 17:42, Paul Koning wrote:
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
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
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:27 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> 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
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
39 matches
Mail list logo
