[Info-vax] State of the OpenVMS hobbyist program?

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 11/20/2019 2:20 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 11/20/2019 1:52 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> The main issue is whether you are still legally allowed to run the PDP-11
>> operating systems under SimH. Mentec created a hobbyist licence which
>> allowed people to run older versions of the various PDP-11 operating
>> systems for hobbyist purposes.
> 
> "Legally".  An interesting word.  Just what does it mean.  Various 
> people can have varying opinions.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion. 
> No one is guaranteed their opinion has any meaning.  When multiple 
> entities do not agree, that is when lawyers live off other people's money.
> 
>> However, the catch is that the licence specifies you can only run them
>> on an emulator owned by DEC (I forget the exact wording but that is the
>> meaning of the wording used).
> 
> But, as you mentioned, the stuff is readily available to the public, 
> AND, I don't see anyone attempting to prevent that.  So, an opinion 
> might be that it's allowable to use what's readily available.  And if no 
> entity attempts to stop them, might it be both morally and legally Ok?

Everybody is free to have the opinion that water runs upwards.

That does not change the fact that water runs downwards.

Everybody can have weird ideas about copyright, but the basics are
pretty simple.

One cannot use stuff without permission. The default is cannot use.
One need to be able to show a permission (license from copyright holder
or a law that grant permission) to be able to use stuff. In all
countries that has signed the Berne convention. That is practically
everywhere.

Let me make a few quotes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abandonware

<quote>
In most cases, software classed as abandonware is not in the public 
domain, as it has never had its original copyright officially revoked 
and some company or individual may still own rights. While sharing of 
such software is usually considered copyright infringement, in practice 
copyright holders rarely enforce their abandonware copyrights for a 
number of reasons
...
Rarely has any abandonware case gone to court, but it is still unlawful 
to distribute copies of old copyrighted software and games, with or 
without compensation, in any Berne Convention signatory country.
...
Old copyrights are usually left undefended. This can be due to 
intentional non-enforcement by owners due to software age or 
obsolescence, but sometimes results from a corporate copyright holder 
going out of business without explicitly transferring ownership, leaving 
no one aware of the right to defend the copyright.

Even if the copyright is not defended, copying of such software is still 
unlawful in most jurisdictions when a copyright is still in effect.
</quote>

<quote>
Currently, US copyright law does not recognize the term or concept of 
"abandonware" while the general concept "orphan works" is recognized
</quote>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_work

<quote>
In countries whose laws do not specifically allow for the use of orphan 
works, orphan works are not available for legal use by filmmakers, 
archivists, writers, musicians, and broadcasters. Because rightsholders 
cannot be identified and located to obtain permission, historical and 
cultural records such as period film footage, photographs, and sound 
recordings cannot be legally incorporated in contemporary works in such 
countries (unless the incorporation qualifies as fair use).
</quote>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_works_in_the_United_States

<quote>
Beginning in May 2006, various legislative bills have been introduced in 
Congress aimed at addressing the issue of orphan works. As of 2016, 
Congress has not yet passed any legislation.
</quote>

>> However, DEC no longer own SimH and so the argument made by some people
>> is that the Mentec hobbyist licence is now invalid because there is no
>> longer any DEC owned emulator.
> 
> Is there still a Mentec?  If so, kind of hard to see.
> 
> If one still wants to argue legality and morals, first be prepared to 
> show "harm done".  That is usually what must be demonstrated in a court 
> of law.

In some countries.

Other countries (and that includes the US !!) there is also the
possibility of statuary damages for copyright infringement.

In the US up to 150 K$ per infringement.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

Arne