[Info-vax] [Attn: HP Employees] PDP-11 OS hobbyist licensing

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <l2hvce$6g1$1 at speranza.aioe.org>,
	glen herrmannsfeldt <gah at ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bill at server3.cs.scranton.edu> wrote:
>> In article <524b2edb$0$61281$c3e8da3$5e5e430d at news.astraweb.com>,
>>        JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> (snip)
>>> HP suing some small company for a museum-worthy product HP never
>>> marketed and didn't even know it had rights to. This would look 
>>> very bad.
>  
>> To who?  It wouldn't even make the back page of any paper I 
>> have ver seen.
>  
> (snip)
> 
>>>                                                             Would the
>>> act of donating it to the museum constitute breach of copyright in the
>>> sense that the museum would then take the IP and make money from it ?
>  
>> How much money do the people who steal music make from the things they
>> steal?  This is also irrelevant.  Unless the license agtreement with
>> the owner of the IP in question said you could do it, yes, it would
>> breach the copyright.  I have tapes containing RT-11, RSX and RSTS that
>> I got from Mentec along with a license to use them here at the University.
>> It specifically requires that I ensure the covered software remains in my
>> control.
> 
>>> Does the source of the PDP-11 operating systemns have any value today ?
>  
>> Irrelevant.
> 
> Is it really? 

Well, I guess it should be that percieved value is irrelevant.  Some
people here seem to think that if they think the PDP-11 OSes have no
value to HP then it is true.  I think the "music" (and I use the term
very loosely) that kids are stealing today has absolutely no value.
The RIAA doesn't agree and the courts tend to side with them.

>                Fair use takes into consideration the value and/or loss
> to the copyright holder. 

Unlike a newspaper article or even a book, I don't think you can apply
the term "fair use" to stolen software.  I know of case in the past
where that defense has worked.  :-)

And the way "fair use" works you would have to be just running 
maybe 10% of the code.  How does that work?  :-)

>                           There are other considerations, too, but the
> loss is a pretty important one. 

Loss can go a long way towards increased damages, but lack of value to
the thief does not excuse their actions.

> 
>>> Would its release harm HP in any way ?
>  
>> Irrelevant.
> 
> For compensatory damages, the loss and/or harm are considered.

That's true, but even in cases where the courts have awarded ridiculously
low damage awards there are still frequently substantial legal penalties
and potential jail time.

> There are cases (the one I am remembering was a libel case,
> but it could also happen for copyright) where compensatory 
> damages were awarded as $1, but very large punative damages.

Libel tend to be more difficult to even prove as it is damage to
something intangible.  Theft of property. violation of a license,
pretty much any copyright violation is easier as there is some
form of material involved and either the thief has it or they don't.


>  
>>> Again, this is in a context where HP does not respond to requests to
>>> open source the PDP-11 OS. If HP responded to those requests, my
>>> attitude would be very different.
>  
>> HP has no requirement to cater to your whims.
> 
> (snip)
> 
>>> If a company does not protect its IP and keeps a blind eye to breaches
>>> of copyright/patent infringement, it loses the right to defend that
>>> IP/copyright later on.
>  
>> 1.  That is not necessarily so.  Try it and see where you end out.
>> 2.  It still isn't "public domain" as that is a very specific legal
>>    concept and the requirements are spelled out plainly in many
>>    places.
> 
> I am pretty sure it is true for trademark. If you don't protect
> them you can easily lose them. 

You can lose them, but they don't become "public domain".  Public
Domain is a very specific legal concept.  Sadly, it is and for the
most part has been very poorly understood.   Ask RMS about that.

>                                I believe also for patents, but
> I am not so sure about that. 

LZW was unenforced for a very long time.  They didn't lose it.

>                                I don't know about copyright.

"Happy Birthday" comes immediately to mind.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>