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

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <524cc113$0$59876$c3e8da3$e074e489 at news.astraweb.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
> On 13-10-02 18:27, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> 
>> You never "loose" your copyright. It expires at a later point. Currently 
>> it is 70 years after you die in most countries. Not sure how that 
>> translates to companies though...
> 
> If a party releases the software to the public without asking HP, then
> HP definitely can sue and likely win.
> 
> If the party asks HP and HP responds with "No you can't, we'll sue you
> if you do", and the party still releases the software, then it is a no
> brainer infringement.
> 
> If HP responds with "yes you can", and then sues the party for
> infringement, the party has the letter to defend itself.
> 
> But if HP does not respond, and the party can show due diligence and
> multiple attempts to get an answer from HP, a judge will have to use
> something called "judgement" (that is what judges are there for :-).
> The argument that HP has abandonned claims of ownership through lack of
> response becomes important.

You still seem to assume that HP has a responsibility to cater to your
whims.  If you are not a paying customer (or a potential paying customer)
HP has no responsibility to talk to you at all.  The law is clear, you
do not own the IP in question and you do not have any rights rgarding its
disposition.

> 
> Remember that Mentec/XX2247 have many rights over the software. So it
> isn't like a hacker coming in and stealing the software and making it
> public.

They have only the rights granted by the purchase agreement and Mentec
could not grant XX2247 any  more rights than they had in the first place.

> 
> With regards to people who steal music. When that music is for sale in
> stores/iTunes, then stealing it deprives the industry of revenues and
> has direct harm. Same for movies.

The PDP-11 OSes still contain stuff that, at least indirectly, is still
being sold, like RMS.  

> 
> Making the source of the PDP11 operating systems public will not deprive
> anyone of revenues

And you can prove this?  Even though, it is still irrelevant!  Revenue
is not a deciding factor in IP.  Non-commercial IP is covered by the
same copyright laws as commercial.

>                    and if any, might in fact generate puzz/pbhlicity for
> those old machines and increase chances that XX2247 might increase its
> revenues from it.

Let me see if I understand this last one.  If they give away their product
it will increase sales?  Just what world do you live in?  

So tell me, does Canada not have copyright laws?  Or have they just refused
to translate them into French?

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>