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

[Simon Clubley]

On 2013-10-03, Bill Gunshannon <bill at server3.cs.scranton.edu> wrote:
> In article <l2k6so$dqf$1 at dont-email.me>,
> 	Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> On 2013-10-03, Bill Gunshannon <bill at server3.cs.scranton.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <l2jmbe$8pc$3 at dont-email.me>,
>>> 	Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>>>> On 2013-10-03, Simon Clubley <clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what the legal situation is with Bitsavers which archives not
>>>>> only the public documentation, but also the binary OS kits as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look, you will see they have versions of RSX not covered by
>>>>> the Mentec license. As for me, I would like to play with the kits
>>>>                                                               ^
>>>> 
>>>> Insert "authorised by the Mentec hobbyist licence" after "kits" here.
>>>> You won't find me touching any version not covered by the Mentec licence.
>>>
>>> And you have the DEC Emultor clearly spelled out in that same Mentec
>>> License?
>>>
>> 
>> [snip patronising response]
>> 
>> Next time Bill, you might want to read the whole of my response before
>> sounding off.
>
> I did.  You said "Insert "authorised by the Mentec hobbyist licence"".
> Without the EMULATOR as spelled out in the infamous Mentec License there
> are no kits "authorised by the Mentec hobbyist licence".  
>
>
>> 
>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> and there's nothing at a technical level stopping me, but morally
>>>>> I just don't feel it's right until after the licence issue is resolved.
>>>>>
>> 

I also went on to say that there's nothing a technical level stopping me
from using those kits, but I didn't feel it was right until after the
licence issue was resolved. See above.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world