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
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.
I think the public is realising that the feds are incompetant and the
law requires extensive costs to the owners with little chance of
returns.
I see it done in the musical industry and there are plenty of places
on
the net that furnish "abandoned" computor programs. We have plenty
of laws in the U.S. but the feds are not interested in enforcement
anymore.
Judges also are not willing to get involved with such nuisance cases
either
since damages are not being proven as extensive and the rights of
"fair use" laws
are making things both difficult and costly. The entertainment
industry has
very deep pockets but are finding that that is not enough since it
is
now considered a "scoff" law. A patent holder knows first hand that
it is nigh impossible to stop piracy unless the pockets are really
deep and
big profits and competition is at stake.
Art


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

I recall reading that some people have bought Cray supercomputers for
use at home as a hobbiest. But apparently the software to run them is
specific to the S/N of the machine, and you can't get it without paying
huge amounts of money. Seems a bit odd if the machine is 10 or more
years old. There is no commercial loss to a company if someone hobbyiest
is running an old machine that is less powerful than his PC.

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.

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 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.
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.

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

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

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

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.
--
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/

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.

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/

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

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!

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

"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...)

On 26 Nov, 16:14, "Joel Koltner"
wrote:
"Dave" wrote in ...
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...)

Why is there a difference with respect to standard patents and
computor programs?
After 20 years it is open season of new patent designs whereas a
programmer doesn't even
declare his source code while holding it for life.Copyright laws in no
way encourage
advancement in science for the population as a whole, it only
encourages greed.
Copyrighting as it is presently framed is just a money pit for
eternity at the
public's expense, therefore it is understandable the law is being
ignored until it is
redrawn along the same lines as patents. Mathematics could be next in
line for copyright
where the money pit could last for centuries and dom civilization
itself!
Best regards
Art
Art

art wrote:


Why is there a difference with respect to standard patents and
computor programs?

Because all computer progams are covered by copyright, and in the US and
some other countries are also covered by patents.

The US Entertainment industry has continually, and successfully lobbied your
government officials to vastly increase the term, or length of copyright
from 14 years to, I think 70 years after the author's death.

In much, even most, of the world, it is not possible to patent computer
software per se. Patenting is not used for it's original intention,
either - to spread knowledge about new inventions while allowing the
inventor to be compensated for a limited period of time but instead to find
ways to block your competitors from having this feature, or that.

After 20 years it is open season of new patent designs whereas a
programmer doesn't even
declare his source code while holding it for life.Copyright laws in no
way encourage
advancement in science for the population as a whole, it only
encourages greed.
Copyrighting as it is presently framed is just a money pit for
eternity at the
public's expense, therefore it is understandable the law is being
ignored until it is
redrawn along the same lines as patents. Mathematics could be next in
line for copyright
where the money pit could last for centuries and dom civilization
itself!

You raise a lot of good points, Art. Copyrighting was also intended as a way
to allow authors or creators to have the exclusive right to benefit from
their work, but it was also intended that the work would go into the public
domain after a short period of time - initially 14 years, then 28, then 56,
now life of the author + 70 years in the US.

The present policy of ever extending copyright has not only kept a lot of
material from public view, it has prevented many preservations of old,
abandoned (orphan) works in film and audio formats. Worse, it has
completely discounted the public interest in seeing works becoming
available in the public domain.

Bob, VE7HS