Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Dave wrote:
It's a shame there is not a law that allows software to be used freely
after x years of no new updates.

You are welcome to lobby your represntatives to change the copyright
laws.

I do not intend to. But it would seem sensible. If someone has no
intension of selling something any more, it is hard to see what he/she
looses by others having it. Obviously if they sell something similar,
then I can see it would hurt them. But if they simply have given up
selling software like it, then I see no reason it should not be free.

I know Sun Microsystems have been helpful in supplying old software
(SunOs + others) to people that want to use it on old machines. But Cray
were not apparently. And from what I understand, its not as easy to copy
on a Cray.

There are two things wrong with this.

1. Sun has not been helpful supplying SUNOS for old machines, they have
only been less than agressive in enforcing their copyright.

I know of people who have got things from directly from Sun for old
machines.

However you will find that the sites that they have not gone
after are outside the U.S.



They will provide for free download Solaris (SUNOS 5) 8, 9 and 10
for download if you sign up (for free) and accept their restricted
license.

I'm not sure if you can get 8 or 9 now. Perhaps 9, but I've not seen 8.
Must admit I have not looked too hard. I am typing this on a machine
with Solaris 10


Solaris 10 really is excellent value. Use it on any machine, with any
number of CPUs, commercial / hobby / educational, and it costs you $0.00.

I've seriously considered deleting Vista from my laptop and putting
Solaris on that. But I know it will be a pain to get it all working,
drivers etc.

There is an open source version of Solaris 10, however that only supports
the UltraSparc II and later processors.

That is not true. OpenSolaris runs on x86 and x64 hardware. I know that,
as I installed it myself.

Or perhaps you mean it does not support early *SPARC* processors. If so,
I would agree with you.

Solaris 7, which was available for shipping costs, was originaly released
at about $500 and derivative versions (e.g. Tadpole's) were never free.

Yes, I bought 7 myself for shipping costs. Strange thing is I wanted to
buy two copies - one for me, one for someone else. Sun would not allow
me to order two though! Some silly reason - I forget what it was.

Anything older is long gone, and not available from SUN.

I think there are plenty of sources in Sun which will give this sort of
stuff away.


2. What's left of Cray is owned by Sun. After Seymor Cray died, the
company went under and Sun bought them out. SUN produced a line
of "Cray" computers which had SPARC processors in them.

Note that many UNIX vendors had a license from AT&T that required
them to pay AT&T $60 for each workstation (2 or less users) or
$250 per server binary package they sold.



Sun in those days included a RTU "right to use" license for SunOS
when you bought a new computer, but technicaly it was not transferable.




Geoff.

Highland Ham wrote:
It's a shame there is not a law that allows software to be used freely
after x years of no new updates.
=================================
If older software is no longer of commercial gain to the
developer(s),he/she/they can always declare it to be licensed under the
GPL = General Public Licence as established through the Free Software
Foundation . Under the GPL the software can then be modified , sold by
anybody which MIGHT extends its useful life.
Much Linux software is covered by the GPL (current version 3)

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

GPL'ed software has to be released with source code, which means work
for the developer. If he/she has lost interest, they are not likely to
dig out the source and make it available.

I think there should be an automatic right to use the software after
(say) 8 years of no updates, no sales and no similar product from the
same developer. But I don't feel sufficiently strongly about it that I
will lobby my MP about it!

Dave wrote:
I know of people who have got things from directly from Sun for old
machines.

They may have, but it's not official.


I'm not sure if you can get 8 or 9 now. Perhaps 9, but I've not seen 8.
Must admit I have not looked too hard. I am typing this on a machine
with Solaris 10

Yes, you can. I did it recently for a Sun4m computer.

That is not true. OpenSolaris runs on x86 and x64 hardware. I know that,
as I installed it myself.

Totally irrelevant. There are NO old SUN machines with X86 or X64 processors.
SunOS 5 has been available for X86 computers since Sun bought what became
it from Kodak. However it's only been about years that Sun has sold X86/X64
computers.


Or perhaps you mean it does not support early *SPARC* processors. If so,
I would agree with you.

That's it, you said old Sun computers.


I think there are plenty of sources in Sun which will give this sort of
stuff away.

Sure and there are plenty of people who have it and will send you a copy,
plus a few "archive" sites with SunOS 2 and 3, but they are either
outside the U.S. or will publicly deny that they exist.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

art wrote:
A friend of mine wants to try out the AO program by Beazely.
The program is not in the commercial market now as it is not being
sold
He wants to make a copy of my disc to try something out that requires
AO
I suppose since it is not for sale which probably means copyrights are
now defunct

Copyright is (virtually)forever, regardless of any aspect of whether the
work was or is for sale or not.

One cannot, for instance, make a legal copy of an original (film) print
of Disney's "Snow White", if you happened to have such a thing, even
though Disney doesn't sell it (and never has, actually. prints are just
rented or loaned)


I don't see any reason to not acceed to his request.

Well, since its still covered by copyright, it wouldn't be either legal
or ethical to do so.


Ofcourse so few people pay for computor programs these days but I like
to do things right,
after all if a patent is abandoned then it is a free for all since
the advance of science cannot be stopped and it becomes freeware

Patents have a relatively short term (20 years now), and have a whole
aspect of "all infringers must be pursued", which does not apply in the
case of copyright. You do NOT have to purse all infringers of copyright
to keep the protection in force, and the term of copyright has been
extended over the years.. 50 years after the author's death, I think
(and Brian is still alive...)


Lest you be thinking of one of the "fair use" exceptions, you'd have a
very tough time justifying it for software. Same for the "library making
copies of out-of-print or hard-to-find books" exception.



Stanford University has an excellent site with summaries and gory
details on copyrights, particularly with respect to "fair use".

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

Comments
Art

art wrote:

Yup,
you are probabl;y correct! I will get around it by lending it
while retaining ownership which apparently what is normaslly done
these days.

Actually, odds are that you do not OWN the software. You probably
licensed it, and you'd have to look at the license terms to see if it
can be "loaned". Most licenses prohibit loaning.

Shame that it is being squirreled away so nobody can use it
especially since it is still considered the best there is.

Considered by who? It's certainly convenient and structured in a way
that fits well with ham users, but for antenna optimization in general,
there are an awful lot of very sophisticated programs out there.

As for asking he does not answer Emails as he now works
in other areas. People have been asking for it so that they
can see and model Gaussian antennas for themselves and I don't know
of another program that would accept it
Art


I believe that the reason he doesn't respond is that he (justifiably)
felt taken advantage of by people who duplicated his software without
paying for it. So, he decided "well, if that user community can't be
trusted.. I'm not interested in providing support."

My interpretation, not Brian's.

art wrote:
On 4 Nov, 16:20, Denny wrote:

Brian is unlikely to either agree to sharing or to provide a new
copy...


I already have two copies which are paid for so I can
share one with another person or give it as a gift


Nope..
The license agreement apparently reads along the lines of:

This software is copyrighted. It has been provided to
you on the condition that you will not sell, rent, lend, give
away, or otherwise transfer the software to others.

Seems wierd to me that a patent costs a lot of money to get
and requires a maintenance fee every two years to provide
protection in the name of science as well as forcing
publication for public reading Yet a computor program
has similar protection as a trade secret or better which lasts for
an awefull long time and can be used for the prevention
of the advance of science by not making it available so
the science can be advanced.

Different legislative history, different industries, etc.

Copyright didn't used to be that long a term. And, copyright has
interesting things like fair-use and compulsory licenses (thank you
player piano manufacturers).

Highland Ham wrote:
It's a shame there is not a law that allows software to be used freely
after x years of no new updates.

=================================
If older software is no longer of commercial gain to the
developer(s),he/she/they can always declare it to be licensed under the
GPL = General Public Licence as established through the Free Software
Foundation .


Assuming the author actually wants this to happen. Heck, the author
could go one step further and just declare it to be Public Domain.

However, there are good reasons why an author may not want their
software used. Maybe it has an egregious bug that would lead to
endangering public safety? Maybe it caused some legal problem and the
author has been required to cease distribution and support? Maybe the
author just decided to not have anyone use it anymore.. It is the
author's *right* to do so, which is why it is called copyright.


Also, don't confuse copyright (which controls copying) and any licensing
agreements (which might control copying, or use, or anything else).

I've done software for which copyright protection was immaterial, since
it was protected as a "trade secret" and it was licensed under the
condition that the user not further disclose it, with substantial
liquidated damages if they did.



Under the GPL the software can then be modified , sold by
anybody which MIGHT extends its useful life.
Much Linux software is covered by the GPL (current version 3)

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

Jim Lux wrote:
. . .
Copyright didn't used to be that long a term. . .

It seems to have been extended to prevent the Mickey Mouse copyright
from expiring. See, for example,
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/comment..._sprigman.html. The
extension was challenged in court, but the Supreme court ruled in
Mickey's favor.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On 5 Nov, 11:09, Jim Lux wrote:
art wrote:
A friend of mine wants to try out the AO program by Beazely.
The program is not in the commercial market now as it is not being
sold
He wants to make a copy of my disc to try something out that requires
AO
I suppose since it is not for sale which probably means copyrights are
now defunct

Copyright is (virtually)forever, regardless of any aspect of whether the
work was or is for sale or not.

One cannot, for instance, make a legal copy of an original (film) print
of Disney's "Snow White", if you happened to have such a thing, even
though Disney doesn't sell it (and never has, actually. prints are just
rented or loaned)

I don't see any reason to not acceed to his request.

Well, since its still covered by copyright, it wouldn't be either legal
or ethical to do so.

This is America! The two words you used don't have meaning anymore.
As Roy would say the reaction is "justifiable"
Legal is a reference to law, federal law, but that only comes into
place at the whim
of some public servant. On top of that it is to slow to be a
deterrant.
Ethics is something based upon religeon but in America every thing is
based on results
for which the reward is money. There are many a religeous person who
will turn to the gun to deter abortion as well as chemists who will
not sell birth control pills
to the public. Both of these are against the law but the accused say
it is ethics which "justify"
can be used. Again this is a capatalistic country and shooting in the
back
is allowable in the absence of laws. You voted like other Americans
for a
government that provokes wars, lies and tortures, so would you
describe efforts to dethrone Bush
as being something unethical which is also against the law? The demand
for ethics
is now only used in America by losers when law is not on their sidea
and laws are purchased
using money .
As Cronkite would say " that's the way it is"

Regards
Art





snip
Comments
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Dave" wrote in message ...
It's a shame there is not a law that allows software to be used freely after
x years of no new updates.

Well, there -- sort of -- is, it's just that "x" is something like 30 years.
Obviously one could argue endlessly about what that time period should be...

I don't think you'd want to make it, say, 5 or even 10 years -- there's often
still plenty of value left in software that old; whoever owns it will often
decide to sell the entire package to someone else if they haven't had the
means or desire to maintain it for that long. (Look at Commodore -- the name
is still worth millions today even though the "real" Commodore declared
bankruptcy in 1994...)