[TUHS] Ultrix...

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Ian King]

"It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws."  I can only hope that others (dis)regard your property rights, as you (dis)regard the property rights of others.  BTW, where do you live?  I could use a new monitor or two....  
 
-- Ian King, speaking only for himself (the usual disclaimers apply)

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Michael Sokolov [mailto:msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG] 
	Sent: Wed 8/28/2002 10:48 AM 
	To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [TUHS] Ultrix...
	
	

	Johnny Billquist <bqt at update.uu.se> wrote:
	
	> I'm trying to figure out a way of getting the MSCP driver from Ultrix
	> available for porting to NetBSD.
	
	I don't support NetBSD, but Ultrix' MSCP/SCA code is available to everyone.
	
	> The problem is that it's (c) by Digital, now HP.
	
	It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws. Since that is your
	personal voluntary choice, it is your problem.
	
	> Could I be lucky enough that Ultrix actually have been released?
	> And I'm talking Ultrix-32 here, not Ultrix-11.
	
	The International Free Computing Task Force has freed the Ultrix-32 V2.00 and
	V4.20 sources. They can be found on our FTP site in
	
	ivan.Harhan.ORG:/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32
	
	--
	Michael Sokolov                                 786 E MISSION AVE APT F
	Programletarian Freedom Fighter                 ESCONDIDO CA 92025-2154 USA
	International Free Computing Task Force         Phone: +1-760-480-4575
	                                                msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA)
	Let the Source be with you
	Programletarians of the world, unite!
	_______________________________________________
	TUHS mailing list
	TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
	http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
	

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Mirian Crzig Lennox]

On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:15:52 -0700, Ian King <iking at microsoft.com> wrote:
>"It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws."  I can
> only hope that others (dis)regard your property rights, as you
> (dis)regard the property rights of others.  BTW, where do you live?  I
> could use a new monitor or two....

It is possible to respect property rights and yet disagree (to the
point of disobedience) with how the concept has been lately twisted by
monied interests in the United States.

The purpose of copyright is not to be a form of property; if it were,
copyrights would not expire.  The purpose of copyright is to enrich
the public domain by encouraging authors to publish their works, by
ensuring them exclusive right to profit from their work for a limited
time after which time *the work passes into the public domain*.  This
is plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution as the basis for copyright
law: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries." [Article I, section 8].

In fact, the concept of "intellectual property" is a fairly recent
perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
public domain.  When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
wealth, and society as a whole loses.

--Mirian

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Tim Bradshaw]

* Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:

> In fact, the concept of "intellectual property" is a fairly recent
> perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
> public domain.  When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
> example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
> anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
> wealth, and society as a whole loses.

I think this is kind of unfair in many cases.  Firstly copyright has
lasted for a fairly long time for, well, a fairly long time. It's not
some sinister new development which is keeping ultrix in copyright.
Secondly, it's all very well to say that old and valueless bits of
software should be freed, but if you are the organisation which has
the copyright on these things it's really less trivial than you might
think to just give them away.  For a start, there's (almost by
definition) no money in it, so any kind of work needed is costing
money.  Secondly there may be just plain trade-secret stuff in there,
what do you do about that?  There may be all sorts of other awful
things that you don't want to let the world see.

I'm really in favour of giving things away when they're no longer
interesting but I don't think there's just some magic trick you can
do.  Here's a related example: we have a fairly large chunk of
software which I'm wondering if we could open source.  We have the
copyright (I wrote it).  There aren't any trade secrets in it.  But
what there are is some fairly pointed comments about various people
and companies.  I don't think they are defamatory, but I'd really want
to excise them before I gave it out.  So now I have to check through
tens of thousands of lines of code, for no money, just so I can give
it away.

Hmm, this is off-topic, sorry.  I just wanted to say that it doesn't
have to be malice, sometimes it's just hard.

--tim

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Mirian Crzig Lennox]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:27:39 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> wrote:
>* Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
>
>> In fact, the concept of "intellectual property" is a fairly recent
>> perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
>> public domain.  When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
>> example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
>> anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
>> wealth, and society as a whole loses.
>
>I think this is kind of unfair in many cases.  Firstly copyright has
>lasted for a fairly long time for, well, a fairly long time. It's not
>some sinister new development which is keeping ultrix in copyright.

Copyright has existed for roughly 300 years[1].  However, the
construction of copyright as a form of property is a relatively recent
development.  The original copyright term in the U.S. was a mere 14
years[2], and copyrights were adjudicated under tort law, not property
law.  As framed in law and interpreted by U.S courts, the purpose of
copyright is foremost the public good (hence the "fair use" doctrine);
the act of 'publishing' is, as the etymology of the word suggests, a
contribution by the author to the public domain, in return for which
he or she is given exclusive right to profit from that work for a
limited prior time.

However, since 1960 the term of copyright has been extended 11 times,
so that no copyrighted work published before 1923 has entered the
public domain (nor will it until 2018, save for future extensions of
the term).  The depletion of the public domain is real.

>Secondly, it's all very well to say that old and valueless bits of
>software should be freed, but if you are the organisation which has
>the copyright on these things it's really less trivial than you might
>think to just give them away.  For a start, there's (almost by
>definition) no money in it, so any kind of work needed is costing
>money.  Secondly there may be just plain trade-secret stuff in there,
>what do you do about that?  There may be all sorts of other awful
>things that you don't want to let the world see.

This is all a totally unrelated issue however.  Copyright refers
necessarily only to published materials, and published materials
cannot (by definition) be trade secrets.  Furthermore, "public domain"
refers merely to legal status, not to any obligation to make physical
materials available.  The presumption is that if a work is published,
then copies already exist in the hands of the public, and they may now
be freely redistributed.

--Mirian

[1]  The Statute of Anne (1710, in England) is considered to be the
     precursor to U.S. copyright law.

[2]  It could however be renewed for a single further period of 14
     years, provided the initial author was still alive.

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Ian King]

Distribution can be restricted by agreement - for instance, I can share source code with you under an agreement that you will not disclose it to others, and I can seek redress if you do disclose.  That is common with software.  But even absent modifying contract, the "fair use" right you mention is not absolute and unfettered.  If I write a book and it is published, you cannot decide to print your own copies and distribute them; I have not waived my rights under copyright by publishing.  Indeed, the book does NOT "pass into the public domain" until after expiration of my copyright.  This is no different from the case where I invent and create a physical object and distribute it, subject to patent rights that I have acquired; although the physical object is (by logical necessity) out in the public, others may not freely copy it and deny me the benefit of my creativity.  "Publishing" is "making public," but not "placing into the public domain" - you have correctly stated that "public domain" is a legal concept, but incorrectly defined it.  Even distribution for no material gain (e.g. "freeware") is not "public domain."  
 
DEC (and others) wrote some interesting licenses; although I might buy a DEC computer from you, complete with its software, I would not be legally entitled to use the software until I had negotiated my own license with DEC (or now, most commonly, Mentec).  I've always thought that was a bit greedy, but it is lawful to create a non-transferrable license.  Today, once the license fee for a given copy has been paid, that license is usually transferrable to another; I can give (or sell) you a copy of a book I purchased, too.  But that does not change the author's rights to the material, nor those of the party in possession; it is simply not true that "placing the work in the hands of the public" means "they may now be freely redistributed".  
 
Software does make things more complex; the corpus of law around it is still being established.  However, the fundamental principle of a party's right to control of and recompense for his/her/its work product, be it physical or intellectual, still applies.  Anyone who denies that, and acts accordingly, is simply a thief, notwithstanding their erudite rationalizations.  -- Ian 
 
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.  

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Mirian Crzig Lennox [mailto:mirian at cosmic.com] 
	Sent: Fri 9/6/2002 6:59 AM 
	To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [TUHS] Ultrix...
	
	

	On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:27:39 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> wrote:
	>* Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
	>
	>> In fact, the concept of "intellectual property" is a fairly recent
	>> perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
	>> public domain.  When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
	>> example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
	>> anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
	>> wealth, and society as a whole loses.
	>
	>I think this is kind of unfair in many cases.  Firstly copyright has
	>lasted for a fairly long time for, well, a fairly long time. It's not
	>some sinister new development which is keeping ultrix in copyright.
	
	Copyright has existed for roughly 300 years[1].  However, the
	construction of copyright as a form of property is a relatively recent
	development.  The original copyright term in the U.S. was a mere 14
	years[2], and copyrights were adjudicated under tort law, not property
	law.  As framed in law and interpreted by U.S courts, the purpose of
	copyright is foremost the public good (hence the "fair use" doctrine);
	the act of 'publishing' is, as the etymology of the word suggests, a
	contribution by the author to the public domain, in return for which
	he or she is given exclusive right to profit from that work for a
	limited prior time.
	
	However, since 1960 the term of copyright has been extended 11 times,
	so that no copyrighted work published before 1923 has entered the
	public domain (nor will it until 2018, save for future extensions of
	the term).  The depletion of the public domain is real.
	
	>Secondly, it's all very well to say that old and valueless bits of
	>software should be freed, but if you are the organisation which has
	>the copyright on these things it's really less trivial than you might
	>think to just give them away.  For a start, there's (almost by
	>definition) no money in it, so any kind of work needed is costing
	>money.  Secondly there may be just plain trade-secret stuff in there,
	>what do you do about that?  There may be all sorts of other awful
	>things that you don't want to let the world see.
	
	This is all a totally unrelated issue however.  Copyright refers
	necessarily only to published materials, and published materials
	cannot (by definition) be trade secrets.  Furthermore, "public domain"
	refers merely to legal status, not to any obligation to make physical
	materials available.  The presumption is that if a work is published,
	then copies already exist in the hands of the public, and they may now
	be freely redistributed.
	
	--Mirian
	
	[1]  The Statute of Anne (1710, in England) is considered to be the
	     precursor to U.S. copyright law.
	
	[2]  It could however be renewed for a single further period of 14
	     years, provided the initial author was still alive.
	_______________________________________________
	TUHS mailing list
	TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
	http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
	

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Ian King]

I agree with your premise that copyright can be detrimental to broader interests, and the case of "obsolete but historically interesting" software is a prime case in point.  However, copyright holders can choose to make things readily available without placing them in the public domain; the 'Ancient UNIX' license is a great example.  If they choose not to do so, the law does allow them recourse.  I doubt they would consume the resources to execute on that against individuals who are running old software for non-commercial purposes; I suspect that those who commit such indiscretions wholesale may not be treated with such latitude.  
 
And, IMHO, those who baldly advertise their general disdain of copyright law are pretty much asking for it.  -- Ian 
 
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent my employer's opinions.  

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Mirian Crzig Lennox [mailto:mirian at cosmic.com] 
	Sent: Thu 9/5/2002 4:56 PM 
	To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Re: [TUHS] Ultrix...
	
	

	On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:15:52 -0700, Ian King <iking at microsoft.com> wrote:
	>"It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws."  I can
	> only hope that others (dis)regard your property rights, as you
	> (dis)regard the property rights of others.  BTW, where do you live?  I
	> could use a new monitor or two....
	
	It is possible to respect property rights and yet disagree (to the
	point of disobedience) with how the concept has been lately twisted by
	monied interests in the United States.
	
	The purpose of copyright is not to be a form of property; if it were,
	copyrights would not expire.  The purpose of copyright is to enrich
	the public domain by encouraging authors to publish their works, by
	ensuring them exclusive right to profit from their work for a limited
	time after which time *the work passes into the public domain*.  This
	is plainly stated in the U.S. Constitution as the basis for copyright
	law: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
	for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
	their respective writings and discoveries." [Article I, section 8].
	
	In fact, the concept of "intellectual property" is a fairly recent
	perversion, and the consequence has been a steady depletion of the
	public domain.  When a piece of software (and Ultrix is an excellent
	example) is tied up in copyright long after it is of any value to
	anyone beyond pure academic interest, nothing is added to anyone's
	wealth, and society as a whole loses.
	
	--Mirian
	_______________________________________________
	TUHS mailing list
	TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
	http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
	

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Michael Sokolov]

Johnny Billquist <bqt at update.uu.se> wrote:

> I'm trying to figure out a way of getting the MSCP driver from Ultrix
> available for porting to NetBSD.

I don't support NetBSD, but Ultrix' MSCP/SCA code is available to everyone.

> The problem is that it's (c) by Digital, now HP.

It is a problem only if you choose to honor copyright laws. Since that is your
personal voluntary choice, it is your problem.

> Could I be lucky enough that Ultrix actually have been released?
> And I'm talking Ultrix-32 here, not Ultrix-11.

The International Free Computing Task Force has freed the Ultrix-32 V2.00 and
V4.20 sources. They can be found on our FTP site in

ivan.Harhan.ORG:/pub/UNIX/thirdparty/Ultrix-32

-- 
Michael Sokolov					786 E MISSION AVE APT F
Programletarian Freedom Fighter			ESCONDIDO CA 92025-2154 USA
International Free Computing Task Force		Phone: +1-760-480-4575
						msokolov at ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA)
Let the Source be with you
Programletarians of the world, unite!

[TUHS] Ultrix...

[Johnny Billquist]

Hi. I have a small question for you.

I'm trying to figure out a way of getting the MSCP driver from Ultrix
available for porting to NetBSD.
The problem is that it's (c) by Digital, now HP.

Does anyone know of any persons who were involved in the old days when
code was exchanged between BSD and Ultrix? Those people might be a good
starting point for getting code today as well I suspect.

Does anyone else around here have any good clues on this?

Could I be lucky enough that Ultrix actually have been released?

And I'm talking Ultrix-32 here, not Ultrix-11.

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol