On 2015-11-15 20:37, Paul Koning wrote:
On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
I personally don't have a problem with copyright. I do have some issues with
"owning" ideas... :-)
That's fine, so do I. Copyright has nothing to do with owning ideas, it only covers a
parti
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> ...
> I personally don't have a problem with copyright. I do have some issues with
> "owning" ideas... :-)
That's fine, so do I. Copyright has nothing to do with owning ideas, it only
covers a particular expression of an idea. I su
On 2015-11-15 20:01, Paul Koning wrote:
On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
Personally? I think the rightest way is to eliminiate the legal
fiction called "intellectual property", as a good-sounding experiment
that has failed. It is not producing the effects it was pu
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Peter Cetinski wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>>
...
Personally? I think the rightest way is to eliminiate the legal
fiction called "intellectual p
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Personally? I think the rightest way is to eliminiate the legal
>>> fiction called "intellectual property", as a good-sounding experiment
>>> that has failed. It is
> On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Personally? I think the rightest way is to eliminiate the legal
>> fiction called "intellectual property", as a good-sounding experiment
>> that has failed. It is not producing the effects it was put in place
>> to produce and
Hi
Interesting ..
Oops Yes it was a long time ago Deep Throat tells Bernstein to
'follow the money'
Sherlock Holmes said 'when you have eliminated everything else what you
are left with however improbable is the answer'
If I'm wrong and I haven't said anything then I will not be ac
> From: js
> if they still wanted income from it, it'd still be for sale. If it's
> not for sale, and I can find it, then I'll use it and be sure not to
> profit from it.
This ties in with something called 'fair use' under US IP law, see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair
On 2015-11-15 17:28, Mouse wrote:
If people put the PDP-11 software up in general, they are violating
copyright laws (and possibly IP rights).
In general, probably. But I have seen it said that there are
jurisdictions that do not recognize copyrights other than their own, or
possibly even do n
On 11/14/2015 11:25 PM, Ian Finder wrote:
It seems to me that Paul Koning's attitude will lead retrocomputing to die. We
can't all own computers that can do interesting things with front-panel
programming alone.
By his definition, I have committed a lot of "theft" in my days to restore
sys
> If people put the PDP-11 software up in general, they are violating
> copyright laws (and possibly IP rights).
In general, probably. But I have seen it said that there are
jurisdictions that do not recognize copyrights other than their own, or
possibly even do not recognize copyrights at all.
On 2015-11-15 16:01, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
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
from my point of view.
>On November 15th, 2015 at 8:27 P.M. EST Johnny Billq
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
from my point of view.
>On November 15th, 2015 at 8:27 P.M. EST Johnny Billquist wrote:
>On 2015-11-15 01:56, Mark J. B
>rod wrote:
Well thats part of the picture but not I think all of it.
If you take what Deep Throat told the Washington Post reporter to do
and how Sherlock Holmes said you could solve most cases put them
together and there is one
one possible answer.
>On 15/11/15 13:09, Johnny Billquist w
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
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:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 6:15 PM, rod w
k-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Ian Finder
Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2015 3:25 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: To Al Kossow at bitsavers
It seems to me that Paul Koning's attitude will lead retrocomputing to die.
We can't all own computers th
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 20:25, Ian Finder wrote:
>
> I find the mindset of considering all abandonware scenarios "theft" to be
> pedantic, toxic, shortsighted, and counterproductive- as well as logically
> and legally baseless.
I entirely agree. It's my understanding that Archive.org does archi
It seems to me that Paul Koning's attitude will lead retrocomputing to die. We
can't all own computers that can do interesting things with front-panel
programming alone.
By his definition, I have committed a lot of "theft" in my days to restore
systems I had no other options left to deal with,
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Paul Koning wrote:
"Abandonware" is a term invented as an excuse to steal other people's
property. Let's not try to apply it here.
Copyright infringement is not theft... at least according to the Supreme
Court, but then again, what do they know?
g.
--
Proud owner of
Another thing that I don't know is if XX2247 would possibly be required to
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Al Kossow wrote:
That is the crux of the problem. While XX2247 bought the rights from Mentec
Well, XX2247 is at least related to the KEY to the problem, . . . :-)
Unfortunately, although nobody m
On 11/14/15 5:46 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
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.
That is the crux of the problem. While
On 2015-11-15 02:32, Paul Koning wrote:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-11-15 01:56, Mark J. Blair wrote:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 15:56, rod wrote:
I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly the
same way as the very successful Open
On 11/14/2015 5:32 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
On 2015-11-15 01:56, Mark J. Blair wrote:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 15:56, rod wrote:
I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly the
same way as the very successful Ope
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 17:27, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> We need HP to release things.
If XX2247 LLC owns RT-11 as stated in another post, then what does HP have to
do with it? I am glad that HP continues to license VMS to hobbyists, and I am
one of the licensees. But I thought they owned VMS, n
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 8:27 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>
> On 2015-11-15 01:56, Mark J. Blair wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 14, 2015, at 15:56, rod wrote:
>>>
>>> I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly
>>> the same way as the very successful OpenVMS Hobbyists pro
On 2015-11-15 01:56, Mark J. Blair wrote:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 15:56, rod wrote:
I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly the
same way as the very successful OpenVMS Hobbyists program.
Has anybody contacted the RT-11 rights holder to see if they might be
in
If you have some connections within HP, then please get involved in
trying to get the PDP-11 software released. It is HP who has the final
say. Unfortunately, getting anyone there signing off on something they
don't even know or maybe recognize they have, has turned out to be hard.
I know Al h
On 2015-11-15 00:15, rod wrote:
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?
Who said it was unknown? Al certainly knows who owns it. And it's been
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 6:15 PM, rod wrote:
>
> 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?
Just because YOU don't know who the owner is doe
> On Nov 14, 2015, at 15:56, rod wrote:
>
> I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly the
> same way as the very successful OpenVMS Hobbyists program.
Has anybody contacted the RT-11 rights holder to see if they might be
interested in a program like that? I thi
I am of the opinion that RT,RSX M & D etc could be dealt with in exactly
the same way as the very successful OpenVMS Hobbyists program.
Its free but you need to be a member of a recognized group. In my
case HPUG. I'm also classed as a HP pensioner due to my DEC service.
One thing that has al
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 fo
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 2015-11-14 22:50, Mark J. Blair wrote
On 2015-11-14 22:50, Mark J. Blair wrote:
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
awe
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 any
Naturally, Internet Archive will gladly host the files in any form.
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Jay West wrote:
> 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/
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
