5 Sep
2002
5 Sep
'02
3:15 a.m.
"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@ivan.Harhan.ORG]
Sent: Wed 8/28/2002 10:48 AM
To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Ultrix...
Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)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(a)ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA)
Let the Source be with you
Programletarians of the world, unite!
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
5 Sep
5 Sep
11:56 p.m.
New subject: Ultrix...
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:15:52 -0700, Ian King <iking(a)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
6 Sep
6 Sep
1:27 a.m.
New subject: Ultrix...
* 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
1:59 p.m.
New subject: Ultrix...
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002 02:27:39 +0100, Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote:
* Mirian Crzig Lennox wrote:
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.
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.
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.
7955
days inactive
7956
days old
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ian King -
mirian＠cosmic.com -
Tim Bradshaw