Looking for FMS-11

[Wolfgang]

I wonder if any copies of FMS-11 survived. Does anyone of you have this in his/hers archive? It'd be a nice addition to my system.

Regards,
Wolfgang

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-24 15.48, Wolfgang wrote:
> I wonder if any copies of FMS-11 survived. Does anyone of you have this in his/hers archive? It'd be a nice addition to my system.

For which OS?

Johnny

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <9026608.541.1322146113730.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqf20>,

Wolfgang <oe5...@gmail.com> writes:
> I wonder if any copies of FMS-11 survived. Does anyone of you have this in his/hers archive? It'd be a nice addition to my system.
>

As long as we are talking survival, anybody know if there are any copies
of CTS-300 floating around anywhere?

I have a copy of the two volume Software Source Book for the PDP-11.
One of these days I want to get parts of it scanned so that an attempt
can be made to try and track down some of this old software in order
to preserve it.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-24 18.30, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article<9026608.541.1322146113730.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqf20>,
> Wolfgang<oe5...@gmail.com> writes:
>> I wonder if any copies of FMS-11 survived. Does anyone of you have this in his/hers archive? It'd be a nice addition to my system.
>>
>
> As long as we are talking survival, anybody know if there are any copies
> of CTS-300 floating around anywhere?
>
> I have a copy of the two volume Software Source Book for the PDP-11.
> One of these days I want to get parts of it scanned so that an attempt
> can be made to try and track down some of this old software in order
> to preserve it.

Wasn't CTS-300 and CTS-500 just a prepackaged RSTS with hardware, and
possibly also something like DIBOL included?

Johnny

[Wolfgang]

>
> For which OS?
>
> Johnny

That would not be critical. I'd be happy with any version as I run different OSes here (okay, in Simh for the moment, but real hardware is on the way). I think FMS sold for RSX and RSTS but I may be wrong.

[Wolfgang]

There was a bit more packed in. You should find a software description of CTS on bitsavers. There were at least 4 different Hardware Models (DecDataSystems) that were sold with CTS300. But I think it was sold Software only too. I did a bit of research concerning CTS too, but close to nothing turned up.

Dibol was in the CTS Bundle as far as I know, as well as some other layered products. CTS300 was recommended for about 12 Users maximum, depending on Hardware. Maybe it could handle more. Browse the usenet archives, I think I read that CTS was quite popular in UK - but my memory could be a bit faulty on that or I mix systems up... But if this is right, it may be worth a look if something survived in the archives of a fellow DEC Collector in the UK.

I can look up the bitsavers document mentioned before tomorrow, so if you are still interested in it then, please contact me directly and I'll fire it out via email.

Regards,
Wolfgang

PS: I'm always looking for PDP11 Software of any kind on any media. As well as personal experiences, stories from the past etc... I try to collect as much as possible and preserve it for future. Feel free to contact me any time if you think you have something to share. I'll greatly appreciate that!!

[Wolfgang]

link to the document on bitsavers: http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/spd/12.09.10_8006_CTS-300.pdf

regards,
wolfgang

[Wolfgang]

I was to fast in posting, here's some information on CTS-500 too -> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/spd/12.09.10_8006_CTS-300.pdf

It'd be interesting too if has CTS-500 survived anywhere too. This package looks indeed very interesting. One could do useful work with it even today...

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jam1bv$3jh$1...@iltempo.update.uu.se>,

Apparently CTS-500 was. That one I had not heard of.
CTS-300 ran on top of RT-11 and provided multi-user/multi-tasking
support. Kinda like TSX, yes? To be honest, I dion't understand
CTS-500. I don't see where it provided any service beyond what
was already provided by RSTS. But I would really like to try out
CTS-300.

On another note, anybody ever talk with the TSX guys? Any chance
they might be interested in releasing TSX to the world under some
reasonable Open Source Licensing? I can't imagine it havng much
of a future considering where the PDP-11 OSes stand at this point.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <28205394.356.1322165472258.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbjs5>,

Wolfgang <oe5...@gmail.com> writes:
> I was to fast in posting, here's some information on CTS-500 too -> http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/spd/12.09.10_8006_CTS-300.pdf
>
> It'd be interesting too if has CTS-500 survived anywhere too. This package looks indeed very interesting. One could do useful work with it even today...

I repeat my question from the other message. RSTS already supported multiple
users and jobs. What did CTS-500 offer that RSTS didn't already have?

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-25 15.48, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article<jam1bv$3jh$1...@iltempo.update.uu.se>,

> Johnny Billquist<b...@softjar.se> writes:
>> On 2011-11-24 18.30, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article<9026608.541.1322146113730.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqf20>,
>>> Wolfgang<oe5...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> I wonder if any copies of FMS-11 survived. Does anyone of you have this in his/hers archive? It'd be a nice addition to my system.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As long as we are talking survival, anybody know if there are any copies
>>> of CTS-300 floating around anywhere?
>>>
>>> I have a copy of the two volume Software Source Book for the PDP-11.
>>> One of these days I want to get parts of it scanned so that an attempt
>>> can be made to try and track down some of this old software in order
>>> to preserve it.
>>
>> Wasn't CTS-300 and CTS-500 just a prepackaged RSTS with hardware, and
>> possibly also something like DIBOL included?
>
>
> Apparently CTS-500 was. That one I had not heard of.

Ah. I was confusing CTS-300 and CTS-500. I've done that before. :-)

> CTS-300 ran on top of RT-11 and provided multi-user/multi-tasking
> support. Kinda like TSX, yes? To be honest, I dion't understand
> CTS-500. I don't see where it provided any service beyond what
> was already provided by RSTS. But I would really like to try out
> CTS-300.

The point of CTS-500 was just that it was prepackaged with all the stuff
you wanted. You could create the same system by just picking together
the stuff yourself as well.

Did CTS-300 come with something like MU-BASIC perhaps? Because I don't
think that DEC really shipped a multiuser RT-11 product a'la TSX.
But something like MU-BASIC I could see.

> On another note, anybody ever talk with the TSX guys? Any chance
> they might be interested in releasing TSX to the world under some
> reasonable Open Source Licensing? I can't imagine it havng much
> of a future considering where the PDP-11 OSes stand at this point.

I seem to remember someone talking about that several years ago. Search
archives. It might even be that TSX itself have been released. My memory
is fuzzy.

Johnny

[Al Kossow]

On 11/25/11 6:48 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> On another note, anybody ever talk with the TSX guys? Any chance
> they might be interested in releasing TSX to the world under some
> reasonable Open Source Licensing?

Lyle Bickley did. There are no surviving sources. He was working on
putting together some sort of hobbyist licence for the binaries and
a way to generate license keys, but nothing has happened for a couple
of years. See the email threads on classiccmp about it.

[Wolfgang]

CTS came with a DIBOL compiler and some utilities. See the DEC Software Descriptions on bitsavers I posted. Not that this was a unique special product with new bells and whistles, but it seems to me it was a nice Turnkey System. Kinda AS/400-a-like Machine-Software-Bundle for Business users.

I never found out if it sold good nor I found a site using that system in the past in my surroundings (Austria, Germany).

And I don't understand CTS500 too...

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <23484434.20.1322242674691.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqfv40>,

CTS-300 was definitely more than prepackaged systems. It ran on top of
RT-11 and made it multi-user/multi-tasking. Take a look at the SPD. I
can't believe this went unnoticed and, given its existence, I can't
understand why TSX was written. Unless, of course, CTS-300 really
didn't work. :-)

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jaof3b$a8u$1...@dont-email.me>,

Did he know what happened to the sources? I am amazed at how much of
our history has just been tossed in the dustbin. Sadly, I see this
happening to a lot more, including the sources to the PDP-11 OSes we
all hold so dear. :-(

[paramucho]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:05:47 +0100, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se>
wrote:

There are TSX+ listings at Bitsavers. I'm not sure if they're
complete.

Ian

[paramucho]

On 25 Nov 2011 22:40:19 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

>In article <jaof3b$a8u$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> writes:
>> On 11/25/11 6:48 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>>> On another note, anybody ever talk with the TSX guys? Any chance
>>> they might be interested in releasing TSX to the world under some
>>> reasonable Open Source Licensing?
>>
>> Lyle Bickley did. There are no surviving sources. He was working on
>> putting together some sort of hobbyist licence for the binaries and
>> a way to generate license keys, but nothing has happened for a couple
>> of years. See the email threads on classiccmp about it.
>
>Did he know what happened to the sources? I am amazed at how much of
>our history has just been tossed in the dustbin. Sadly, I see this
>happening to a lot more, including the sources to the PDP-11 OSes we
>all hold so dear. :-(

I remember one of the RT-11 team telling me that they once lost the
master source disks and eventually found them in a pile of disks in
some dusty corner. The sources to my own SHAREplus hung on a gossamer
thread of three rather battered 8" floppy disks for many years.

However, DEC did a good business in selling source kits, so there must
still be copies of the sources sitting in peoples attics, cellars and
sheds. Indeed, I've seen references to as-yet uncopied source kits in
various newsgroup posts. Some of DEC's software developers would have
had private copies of the sources as well.


Ian

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <4ed4415e...@news.tpgi.com.au>,

But sitting in someone's attic is not going to preserve it. Eventually
they will not be around to tell anyone that it is sitting in their attic.
(Hint: If I died tomorrow what do you think my wife would do with all of
my computer stuff? Does the word dumpster ring a bell?)

Let me use just two examples of things I have looked for and been unable
to get copies of. One is a DEC SIG tape:

"11S042 Symposium Tape from the RSTS SIG, Spring 1980, Chicago
Version: Spring 1980"

Numerous listings of the contents but in a search lasting over 10 years I
have never been able to actually find a copy of the tape or its contents.

And the other is The Software Tools Virtual Operating System. This too
had a SIG. And there were tapes distributed for more machines than most
of us have ever seen. There were versions for nearly every system in use
during its prime. I personally used it on two different (and some would
say rather obscure) systems. It was available on the PDP-11 under RSX,
RT-11, RSTS, IAS, Unix, DOS and something called "S". I have been in
touch with the originator of the whole system. No one is aware of the
existence of any copies of an STVOS User Group Tape.

Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
and continues to be lost.

[Lee K. Gleason]

"Bill Gunshannon" <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:9jb6ad...@mid.individual.net...

> But sitting in someone's attic is not going to preserve it. Eventually
> they will not be around to tell anyone that it is sitting in their attic.
> (Hint: If I died tomorrow what do you think my wife would do with all of
> my computer stuff? Does the word dumpster ring a bell?)
>

.
I've instructed my wife what is obscure, rare or valuable in my compuer,
software and electronics collections, and told her how to look for
interested collectors in the event of my untimely demise. Other people with
significant collections ought to think about doing likewise....

>
> Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
> and continues to be lost.
>

Couldn't agree more - I wish I could get ahold of IAS sources, later
versions, and layered products, and the sources for P/OS - but it doesn't
look good....
--
Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
Control-G Consultants
lee.g...@comcast.net

[paramucho]

On 26 Nov 2011 03:55:57 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)

Most of the web references in fact now record your earlier attempts to
locate this sig tape. Was there some particular item on the tape you
were looking for?

>And the other is The Software Tools Virtual Operating System. This too
>had a SIG. And there were tapes distributed for more machines than most
>of us have ever seen. There were versions for nearly every system in use
>during its prime. I personally used it on two different (and some would
>say rather obscure) systems. It was available on the PDP-11 under RSX,
>RT-11, RSTS, IAS, Unix, DOS and something called "S". I have been in
>touch with the originator of the whole system. No one is aware of the
>existence of any copies of an STVOS User Group Tape.

There's an RSX distribution here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307030/readme.1st
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307030/
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307031/
etc

And an earlier release here:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx81a/307030/

Another document (excerpted below) lists systems on which the system
is available. It does not mention RT-11 or RSTS, although I guess the
RSX tools could have been used under RSTS. The RSX version seems to
have been managed by the RSX SIG.

The portability of Software Tools Virtual Operating System succeeded
beyond the wildest belief of its inventors. When you leave RSX for
other systems, you will not have to relearn how to use the Tools.
You can obtain from the public domain RSX, IAS, VAX/VMS, TOPS-20,
UNIX, IBM/CMS, IBM/MVS, Univac 1100, SEL MPX, HP 1000/3000, CP/M and
MS-D0S versions. All require the appropriate Fortran compiler for
the target machine.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx88b/346110/pro8605.art

>Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
>and continues to be lost.

Sad is perhaps not the word, but I have a habit of web scavenging when
my brain is too tired to think (and that happens with great
frequency). I usually find out about some system or package I'd never
heard about in each session.

I think we need to make sure that we don't lose what is currently
available on the web--a lot of it is held on personal sites which
could be discontinued in the future. We are also reaching a critical
period in which the stuff which is still stored in sheds and cellars
may go lost forever as we reach our personal use-by dates.

On the other hand, there is a ton of stuff out there in magic places
like bitsavers, but it's not really in a conveniently usable state.
That's a separate task that awaits.

Ian

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <4ed07954$0$21631$882e...@usenet-news.net>,

"Lee K. Gleason" <lee.g...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> "Bill Gunshannon" <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
> news:9jb6ad...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> But sitting in someone's attic is not going to preserve it. Eventually
>> they will not be around to tell anyone that it is sitting in their attic.
>> (Hint: If I died tomorrow what do you think my wife would do with all of
>> my computer stuff? Does the word dumpster ring a bell?)
>>
> .
> I've instructed my wife what is obscure, rare or valuable in my compuer,
> software and electronics collections, and told her how to look for
> interested collectors in the event of my untimely demise. Other people with
> significant collections ought to think about doing likewise....

And you really think that with all the other stuff that goes on with
the death of a loved one that your computers are going to even show
up above the noise-level?

>>
>> Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
>> and continues to be lost.
>>
> Couldn't agree more - I wish I could get ahold of IAS sources, later
> versions, and layered products, and the sources for P/OS - but it doesn't
> look good....
> --
> Lee K. Gleason N5ZMR
> Control-G Consultants
> lee.g...@comcast.net

Rather than trying to educate family members who neither know or
care about this stuff I think people here should go thru their
software collections and get copies of anything they have (things
like DECUS tapes) to Al Kossow so they can be preserved on bitsavers.
Sadly, it is no real guarantee (look what happened to SIMTEL) but
it is probably the best chance ot this stuff surviving and being
in a place where interested parties may actually be able to get
their hands on it.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <4ed0cf47...@news.tpgi.com.au>,

From that particular tape, the RSTS version of Tiny Pascal. But that
is only part of the problem. The real problem is not what I wanted
off that tape. It is the idea that that tape and so many others seem
to have disappeared.

As one who also has an interest in Old Time Radio (whic is what I grew
up with as my childhood pretty much predates the ubiquitous television
era) I see this as much the same. There was an interview that is
probably available on the Web somewhere where he states that when they
were making this shows no one saw any actual value in them. They never
assumed people would be interested or even care 50 years down the road.
He was wrong. I see the same thing regsrding a lot of what has gone
before us in the computer world. The big difference is that we don't
have someone like the Library of Congress that has kept copies of all
that we did in the past.

>
>>And the other is The Software Tools Virtual Operating System. This too
>>had a SIG. And there were tapes distributed for more machines than most
>>of us have ever seen. There were versions for nearly every system in use
>>during its prime. I personally used it on two different (and some would
>>say rather obscure) systems. It was available on the PDP-11 under RSX,
>>RT-11, RSTS, IAS, Unix, DOS and something called "S". I have been in
>>touch with the originator of the whole system. No one is aware of the
>>existence of any copies of an STVOS User Group Tape.
>
> There's an RSX distribution here:
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307030/readme.1st
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307030/
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307031/
> etc
>
> And an earlier release here:
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx81a/307030/

Thank you for that. I hadn't looked in quite some time. Maybe it was my
search that actually led someone to dig out that tape and put it up there.

That only leaves about 99 more implementations to recover.

>
> Another document (excerpted below) lists systems on which the system
> is available. It does not mention RT-11 or RSTS, although I guess the
> RSX tools could have been used under RSTS. The RSX version seems to
> have been managed by the RSX SIG.
>
> The portability of Software Tools Virtual Operating System succeeded
> beyond the wildest belief of its inventors. When you leave RSX for
> other systems, you will not have to relearn how to use the Tools.
> You can obtain from the public domain RSX, IAS, VAX/VMS, TOPS-20,
> UNIX, IBM/CMS, IBM/MVS, Univac 1100, SEL MPX, HP 1000/3000, CP/M and
> MS-D0S versions. All require the appropriate Fortran compiler for
> the target machine.
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx88b/346110/pro8605.art
>

That is only the tip of the iceberg. Take a look at:
http://www.cs.uofs.edu/~bill/p495-hall.pdf
On the last page is a list of all the Systems/OSes supported in 1980.
The STVOS Users Group continued development for at least 6 more years.
There wered major players. Georgia Tech, UW-Madison. I worked with it
at USMA. West Point. One would have thought that Universities would have
preserved this stuff, but alas, it wasn't a book so it just went away.

>>Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
>>and continues to be lost.
>
> Sad is perhaps not the word, but I have a habit of web scavenging when
> my brain is too tired to think (and that happens with great
> frequency). I usually find out about some system or package I'd never
> heard about in each session.

The Software Sourcebook for the PDP-11 from 1985 is a two volume set
containing 1820 pages. I would bet that less than 1% could still be
found today. In comparison, the VAX equivlaent book was never two
volumes and has about 1/3 the number of applications. I think people,
even some here, do not really understand just how important to computing
history the PDP-11 was.

>
> I think we need to make sure that we don't lose what is currently
> available on the web--a lot of it is held on personal sites which
> could be discontinued in the future. We are also reaching a critical
> period in which the stuff which is still stored in sheds and cellars
> may go lost forever as we reach our personal use-by dates.

I agree.

>
> On the other hand, there is a ton of stuff out there in magic places
> like bitsavers, but it's not really in a conveniently usable state.
> That's a separate task that awaits.

Also true. I have a number of items on tape images. Apparently when
the software to do this was written no thought was given to being able
to reverst the process. And then we have floppy images. Most made
with proprietary software strongly tied to hardware of 30 years ago.
Floppy drives still exist, but actually putting stuff back on the original
media is all put impossible.

But, as I approach full retirement (I actually retired last month but
was talked into coming back part-time until they find a replacement
for me. Not so sure it was a wise move, but the die is cast.) I hope
to be able to devote some time to my preservation efforts. We shall
see, but I am still very skeptical about the hope of saving even a
small portion of our history.

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-26 06:29, Lee K. Gleason wrote:
> "Bill Gunshannon"<bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
> news:9jb6ad...@mid.individual.net...
>

>> Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
>> and continues to be lost.
>>
> Couldn't agree more - I wish I could get ahold of IAS sources, later
> versions, and layered products, and the sources for P/OS - but it doesn't
> look good....

Most of P/OS is shared with RSX. So much is still around. However, the
P/OS specific device driver for the disk is something I have not seen
anywhere... Might be difficult to locate now.

Layered products might be another story, though. If anyone have any
ideas where to locate layered product sources, I'm all ears. Mind you,
I'm not asking to get them, just asking if anyone have any idea where
they might still be around. (And it would appear the leftovers from
Mentec is *not* the answer...)

Johnny

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

[Wolfgang]

> The Software Sourcebook for the PDP-11 from 1985 is a two volume set
> containing 1820 pages. I would bet that less than 1% could still be
> found today. In comparison, the VAX equivlaent book was never two
> volumes and has about 1/3 the number of applications. I think people,
> even some here, do not really understand just how important to computing
> history the PDP-11 was.

I printed out this beast for reference as I am not able to read that good on computer screens... Altough nearly 20years old it's amazing _what_ neat software existed. Your 1% quote could be realistic. I collect mainly operating systems for now as they are a really huge number and there are clever concepts to be found in the scenes behind/sources.

But now I'm at the point where I could really need software for them. There's already nice stuff in my collection, but it is not easy to find new old items (software packages). Sometimes I ask for a particular program when it catches my interest, but if I would ask for all interesting packages in the Software Sourcebook I'd be in every usenet killfile, hi.

> > I think we need to make sure that we don't lose what is currently
> > available on the web--a lot of it is held on personal sites which
> > could be discontinued in the future. We are also reaching a critical
> > period in which the stuff which is still stored in sheds and cellars
> > may go lost forever as we reach our personal use-by dates.
>
> I agree.

I agree too. For my self, I tend to mirror everything that I can find in my personal storage system. Backups are made frequently (I only once lost data in the past, bad experience!). Currently I'm in talks with a guy that keeps a lot of disks and packs around in his little secret garage. You can figure the absolutely inadequate storage conditions. We're in communication for about a year now and I hope to get at least images of his disks soon... It helps nobody if he keeps his stuff in his garage, but he doesn't realize that. Sad.

[Lee K. Gleason]

"Bill Gunshannon" <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message

news:9jcapn...@mid.individual.net...

> In article <4ed07954$0$21631$882e...@usenet-news.net>,
> "Lee K. Gleason" <lee.g...@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> > "Bill Gunshannon" <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
> > news:9jb6ad...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> >> But sitting in someone's attic is not going to preserve it. Eventually
> >> they will not be around to tell anyone that it is sitting in their
attic.
> >> (Hint: If I died tomorrow what do you think my wife would do with all
of
> >> my computer stuff? Does the word dumpster ring a bell?)
> >>
> > .
> > I've instructed my wife what is obscure, rare or valuable in my
compuer,
> > software and electronics collections, and told her how to look for
> > interested collectors in the event of my untimely demise. Other people
with
> > significant collections ought to think about doing likewise....
>
> And you really think that with all the other stuff that goes on with
> the death of a loved one that your computers are going to even show
> up above the noise-level?
>

Err, well. yes, as a matter of fact, I can count on it....my lady is
someone who I can absolutely trust to take care of things that are important
to me, dead or alive. She's that special

[paramucho]

On 26 Nov 2011 15:36:40 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)

I think of it the other way around. After DEC closed its doors *all*
the tapes "disappeared". What we now have all those tapes which have
joyously reappeared.

>As one who also has an interest in Old Time Radio (whic is what I grew
>up with as my childhood pretty much predates the ubiquitous television
>era) I see this as much the same. There was an interview that is
>probably available on the Web somewhere where he states that when they
>were making this shows no one saw any actual value in them. They never
>assumed people would be interested or even care 50 years down the road.
>He was wrong. I see the same thing regsrding a lot of what has gone
>before us in the computer world. The big difference is that we don't
>have someone like the Library of Congress that has kept copies of all
>that we did in the past.

Actually, a lot of stuff is available at www.archive.org, and that
site is explicitly set up to keep a public record. The one problem is
that it doesn't archive FTP sites.

>>>And the other is The Software Tools Virtual Operating System. This too
>>>had a SIG. And there were tapes distributed for more machines than most
>>>of us have ever seen. There were versions for nearly every system in use
>>>during its prime. I personally used it on two different (and some would
>>>say rather obscure) systems. It was available on the PDP-11 under RSX,
>>>RT-11, RSTS, IAS, Unix, DOS and something called "S". I have been in
>>>touch with the originator of the whole system. No one is aware of the
>>>existence of any copies of an STVOS User Group Tape.
>>
>> There's an RSX distribution here:
>>
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307030/readme.1st
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307030/
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx82a/307031/
>> etc
>>
>> And an earlier release here:
>>
>> http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/computer-science/history/pdp-11/rsx/decus/rsx81a/307030/
>
>Thank you for that. I hadn't looked in quite some time. Maybe it was my
>search that actually led someone to dig out that tape and put it up there.

It seems to have been uploaded around 1999 along with all the other
available SIG tapes.

<snip>

Is the cup really only 1% full?

I'm not so sure, particularly when you discard all the endless
repetitions and even more particularly when one sets up some minimum
criteria for what is most worth saving.

When we look at biblio, bitsavers, classiccmp, dbit, trailing-edge,
village and many sites there clearly has already been a massive effort
invested into scanning and transforming raw materials into useful
download sites.

A number of people have started but not completed their planned upload
efforts. They need encouragement. Some of us probably still have
resources which haven't been uploaded. For example, I have barely
started on my store a thousand 5" floppies (most of which are backups
of my own systems), even though I've been actively planning to do so
for over a decade, and have made a number of starts.

In fact, one of the problems we face is that we have so much stuff out
there, scattered across a dozen sites or more. Finding software and
docs is not easy (as the STVOS example above shows). What we need is
an inventory of what we have (and then of what we haven't got). It's
not an easy task because of all items which are duplicated, often
under different names. An inventory might also encourage some to
finally make the effort of uploading their stuff or giving it to
someone who will.

I guess that most of us who are actively interested in preservation
already have fairly full TODO lists (mine will keep me going for a
decade!). So, I think that the other thing we need is some fresh
energy to take the overall preservation task to the next level.







Ian

[paramucho]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 11:09:26 -0800 (PST), Wolfgang <oe5...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>> The Software Sourcebook for the PDP-11 from 1985 is a two volume set
>> containing 1820 pages. I would bet that less than 1% could still be
>> found today. In comparison, the VAX equivlaent book was never two
>> volumes and has about 1/3 the number of applications. I think people,
>> even some here, do not really understand just how important to computing
>> history the PDP-11 was.
>
>I printed out this beast for reference as I am not able to read that good on computer screens... Altough nearly 20years old it's amazing _what_ neat software existed. Your 1% quote could be realistic. I collect mainly operating systems for now as they are a really huge number and there are clever concepts to be found in the scenes behind/sources.
>
>But now I'm at the point where I could really need software for them. There's already nice stuff in my collection, but it is not easy to find new old items (software packages). Sometimes I ask for a particular program when it catches my interest, but if I would ask for all interesting packages in the Software Sourcebook I'd be in every usenet killfile, hi.
>
>> > I think we need to make sure that we don't lose what is currently
>> > available on the web--a lot of it is held on personal sites which
>> > could be discontinued in the future. We are also reaching a critical
>> > period in which the stuff which is still stored in sheds and cellars
>> > may go lost forever as we reach our personal use-by dates.
>>
>> I agree.
>
>I agree too. For my self, I tend to mirror everything that I can find in my personal storage system. Backups are made frequently (I only once lost data in the past, bad experience!).

So do I, in a rather haphazard way. I downloaded a site last night and
hit the old problem of files named CON, AUX and PRN which aren't
accepted by Windows. However, I think all the files concerned are also
in compressed media files as well.

>Currently I'm in talks with a guy that keeps a lot of disks and packs around in his little secret garage. You can figure the absolutely inadequate storage conditions. We're in communication for about a year now and I hope to get at least images of his disks soon... It helps nobody if he keeps his stuff in his garage, but he doesn't realize that. Sad.

I've come across a number of posts where folks say that they have the
intention of uploading a bunch of things but where the tasks aren't
completed. I've just started saving those posts.


Ian

[paramucho]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:28:17 +0100, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se>
wrote:

>On 2011-11-26 06:29, Lee K. Gleason wrote:
>> "Bill Gunshannon"<bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>> news:9jb6ad...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
>>> and continues to be lost.
>>>
>> Couldn't agree more - I wish I could get ahold of IAS sources, later
>> versions, and layered products, and the sources for P/OS - but it doesn't
>> look good....
>
>Most of P/OS is shared with RSX. So much is still around. However, the
>P/OS specific device driver for the disk is something I have not seen
>anywhere... Might be difficult to locate now.
>
>Layered products might be another story, though. If anyone have any
>ideas where to locate layered product sources, I'm all ears. Mind you,
>I'm not asking to get them, just asking if anyone have any idea where
>they might still be around. (And it would appear the leftovers from
>Mentec is *not* the answer...)

Yikes!

Ian

[Lee K. Gleason]

"Johnny Billquist" <b...@softjar.se> wrote in message news:jar432> Most of

P/OS is shared with RSX. So much is still around. However, the
> P/OS specific device driver for the disk is something I have not seen
> anywhere... Might be difficult to locate now.

Yah, and the display driver. Actually, funny hardware drivers aside. P/OS
is close enough that I use it on a PRO-380 for almost all of my RSX work.
Still it's a shame that the sources got lost....

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-27 05.57, Lee K. Gleason wrote:
> "Johnny Billquist"<b...@softjar.se> wrote in message news:jar432> Most of
> P/OS is shared with RSX. So much is still around. However, the
>> P/OS specific device driver for the disk is something I have not seen
>> anywhere... Might be difficult to locate now.
>
> Yah, and the display driver. Actually, funny hardware drivers aside. P/OS
> is close enough that I use it on a PRO-380 for almost all of my RSX work.
> Still it's a shame that the sources got lost....

No, the display driver is around. (But most of it is not included in the
normal RSX distribution.)

And if you read RSX sources, you'll see where the P/OS conditionals are
used for P/OS specific details.

My biggest complaint about P/OS is the fact that it don't support I/D
space, or supervisor mode, even on the PRO-380, where the hardware
supports it. Very annoying.
(Of course, there are a bunch of other issues I have as well, but the
basic concept is still very cool.)

Johnny

[Johnny Billquist]

Tim Shoppa did a wonderful job of collecting just about all the RSX
sigtapes there was, and publishing them as a two CD set. I think he did
the same for some other platforms, but I didn't pay much attention.
I have the RSX CD set around. It consists of two CDs holding the same
data in two different formats. One CD is in ISO 9660 format, while the
other CD is in FILES-11 ODS-1 format. So one you can mount of just about
any "modern" system, while the other you can mount under RSX, assuming
you have a CD drive hooked up to your RSX system.

I think he also have the full RSX Freeware V2 set on trailing edge, so
anyone should be able to get it.

>>> On the other hand, there is a ton of stuff out there in magic places
>>> like bitsavers, but it's not really in a conveniently usable state.
>>> That's a separate task that awaits.
>>
>> Also true. I have a number of items on tape images. Apparently when
>> the software to do this was written no thought was given to being able
>> to reverst the process. And then we have floppy images. Most made
>> with proprietary software strongly tied to hardware of 30 years ago.
>> Floppy drives still exist, but actually putting stuff back on the original
>> media is all put impossible.
>>
>> But, as I approach full retirement (I actually retired last month but
>> was talked into coming back part-time until they find a replacement
>> for me. Not so sure it was a wise move, but the die is cast.) I hope
>> to be able to devote some time to my preservation efforts. We shall
>> see, but I am still very skeptical about the hope of saving even a
>> small portion of our history.
>
> Is the cup really only 1% full?
>
> I'm not so sure, particularly when you discard all the endless
> repetitions and even more particularly when one sets up some minimum
> criteria for what is most worth saving.

Yeah. We have quite a lot. The big problem is how disorganized the
information is.

But there are probably some bits and pieces lost. Which is very sad.

> When we look at biblio, bitsavers, classiccmp, dbit, trailing-edge,
> village and many sites there clearly has already been a massive effort
> invested into scanning and transforming raw materials into useful
> download sites.

For RSX specific issues, I'd recommend
ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp11/rsx, since I try to collect everything
I see and have there, and also give it some sort of structure. If there
are things people are searching for, which isn't there, or is placed in
odd places, I'm happy to hear about it. I can probably fix most things
rather quickly.

But that archive is very much a live repository, and not trying to just
preserve for posterity. I keep uploading new versions of stuff I do, and
aim to have the latest version of whatever around, not neccesarily old,
duplicate or overlapping versions. I try to unify, refine and improve
all the time.

And as a complement, I keep Mim.Update.UU.SE running, which is an RSX
system with a guest account, where people can play around, and actually
test some of the stuff, as that is where I do most work.

Johnny

[paramucho]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:28:17 +0100, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se>
wrote:

>On 2011-11-26 06:29, Lee K. Gleason wrote:
>> "Bill Gunshannon"<bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>> news:9jb6ad...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
>>> and continues to be lost.
>>>
>> Couldn't agree more - I wish I could get ahold of IAS sources, later
>> versions, and layered products, and the sources for P/OS - but it doesn't
>> look good....
>
>Most of P/OS is shared with RSX. So much is still around. However, the
>P/OS specific device driver for the disk is something I have not seen
>anywhere... Might be difficult to locate now.

Nickz at eskimo.com has the driver fiches and started to upload them
in 2001. Perhaps with some encouragement he might continue the effort.

http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/dec.html
http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/pro350/iofiche.html

>Layered products might be another story, though. If anyone have any
>ideas where to locate layered product sources, I'm all ears. Mind you,
>I'm not asking to get them, just asking if anyone have any idea where
>they might still be around.

Some of the layered products are on the diskettes DEC released to
DECUS of course.

>(And it would appear the leftovers from Mentec is *not* the answer...)

I sense there has been some new developments, or perhaps lack of new
developments?

Ian

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-27 16.07, paramucho wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 17:28:17 +0100, Johnny Billquist<b...@softjar.se>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-26 06:29, Lee K. Gleason wrote:
>>> "Bill Gunshannon"<bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:9jb6ad...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Maybe I am alone in this, but I find it truly sad that so much has been
>>>> and continues to be lost.
>>>>
>>> Couldn't agree more - I wish I could get ahold of IAS sources, later
>>> versions, and layered products, and the sources for P/OS - but it doesn't
>>> look good....
>>
>> Most of P/OS is shared with RSX. So much is still around. However, the
>> P/OS specific device driver for the disk is something I have not seen
>> anywhere... Might be difficult to locate now.
>
> Nickz at eskimo.com has the driver fiches and started to upload them
> in 2001. Perhaps with some encouragement he might continue the effort.
>
> http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/dec.html
> http://www.eskimo.com/~nickz/pro350/iofiche.html

Cool. Didn't know about that.

>> Layered products might be another story, though. If anyone have any
>> ideas where to locate layered product sources, I'm all ears. Mind you,
>> I'm not asking to get them, just asking if anyone have any idea where
>> they might still be around.
>
> Some of the layered products are on the diskettes DEC released to
> DECUS of course.

Sources? As far as I know, DEC only submitted binaries to the DECUS library.

>> (And it would appear the leftovers from Mentec is *not* the answer...)
>
> I sense there has been some new developments, or perhaps lack of new
> developments?

Depends on what you are thinking of.
The Mentec IP is no longer with Mentec. However, HP still have a
strangle hold on everything, unless I'm misinformed.

Johnny

[Al Kossow]

On 11/27/11 10:32 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> HP still have a strangle hold on everything

They have bigger problems than dealing with a few hobbyists.
I was hoping to get the a release for all PDP's similar to the what CHM
has for HP-1000 and Apollo, but they really aren't interested in spending
any cycles on dead acquired products right now.

[paramucho]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:30:54 +0100, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se>
wrote:

<snip>

>> Is the cup really only 1% full?
>>
>> I'm not so sure, particularly when you discard all the endless
>> repetitions and even more particularly when one sets up some minimum
>> criteria for what is most worth saving.
>
>Yeah. We have quite a lot. The big problem is how disorganized the
>information is.

The main problem is that we really don't know "what we got and what we
don't got."

>But there are probably some bits and pieces lost. Which is very sad.

I've been finding stuff I didn't know was around during my web
scavenging over the last few weeks, including a MUMPS distribution,
stuff on the Russian websites and stuff which has disappeared from the
web but which is still present in archive.org. I think that if we
managed to put together everything which is out there than would have
much more than 1%. In any case, all we can hope for is to get as much
as possible of what is actually available.

>> When we look at biblio, bitsavers, classiccmp, dbit, trailing-edge,
>> village and many sites there clearly has already been a massive effort
>> invested into scanning and transforming raw materials into useful
>> download sites.
>
>For RSX specific issues, I'd recommend
>ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp11/rsx, since I try to collect everything
>I see and have there, and also give it some sort of structure. If there
>are things people are searching for, which isn't there, or is placed in
>odd places, I'm happy to hear about it. I can probably fix most things
>rather quickly.

I thought I had "update" in my list. I've downloaded all your PDP-11
stuff. I recently took the RSX20F diskettes from your collection and
combined them with the source listings available in the DEC10/20
collections. The sources are from 1979, but at least are in the public
domain. I think that they include MACRO and TKB etc (but no RMS
unfortunately). The listings have MEB (macro expansion binary)
enabled, but I think I've worked out a mechanical way to get rid of
the expansions.

RSX20F was a combination of 11D and 11M, so there's some 11D info
there. I have yet to see an RSX-11D distribution online.

>But that archive is very much a live repository, and not trying to just
>preserve for posterity. I keep uploading new versions of stuff I do, and
>aim to have the latest version of whatever around, not neccesarily old,
>duplicate or overlapping versions. I try to unify, refine and improve
>all the time.
>
>And as a complement, I keep Mim.Update.UU.SE running, which is an RSX
>system with a guest account, where people can play around, and actually
>test some of the stuff, as that is where I do most work.

I used that a few months ago. Worked really well. Helped me work out
how to finally build a decent RSX environment of my own (after thirty
or more years of thinking about it).



Ian

[vaxorcist]

On Nov 24, 3:48 pm, Wolfgang <oe5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if any copies of FMS-11 survived. Does anyone of you have this in his/hers archive? It'd be a nice addition to my system.
>

> Regards,
>  Wolfgang

Hi Wolfgang,

I've got a TPC tape image in my collection that says its FMS-11
version 2.
I haven't tried yet whether that's true.
I got it together with some RSX software (cannot remember where from)
so It might be FMS-11 for RSX.
I'm not at home right now, but when I return I can send you the file.

Have you found any versions of MUMPS-11 or DSM-11 yet?
Or IAS other than V3?

Regards,

Ulli

[Wolfgang]

Hi Ulli,

DSM 3.3 is available here: http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/simh.htm

As far as I know there are currently no other versions of IAS other than V3 to be found online. Ian has found some MPP stuff and is - as I understood that - in the process of preserving that. I hope his disks are still readable.

And I'd be definately interested in your TPC image of FMS! Contact me anytime you want if you've got time.

Regards,
Wolfgang

[Johnny Billquist]

Yeah. I suspected as much. Trying to deal with HP to get PDP-11 software
released is currently not easy to do. :-(
And of course, the same goes for all other PDP models. The only thing I
think has a really different status is TOPS-20 (and perhaps Tops-10),
which XKL pried from DECs hands in the 90s (or was it already in the
late 80s?), along with the limited licenses Bob Supnik pulled out.

Johnny

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-28 06.25, paramucho wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 12:30:54 +0100, Johnny Billquist<b...@softjar.se>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> Is the cup really only 1% full?
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure, particularly when you discard all the endless
>>> repetitions and even more particularly when one sets up some minimum
>>> criteria for what is most worth saving.
>>
>> Yeah. We have quite a lot. The big problem is how disorganized the
>> information is.
>
> The main problem is that we really don't know "what we got and what we
> don't got."

That is definitely also a problem. But the information is also spread
very randomly, and we have lots of duplications and whatnot. You simply
can't get an overview.

>> But there are probably some bits and pieces lost. Which is very sad.
>
> I've been finding stuff I didn't know was around during my web
> scavenging over the last few weeks, including a MUMPS distribution,
> stuff on the Russian websites and stuff which has disappeared from the
> web but which is still present in archive.org. I think that if we
> managed to put together everything which is out there than would have
> much more than 1%. In any case, all we can hope for is to get as much
> as possible of what is actually available.

How ironic it would be if we would have to go to the russians to get
copies of software that have been lost in the US. :-)

>>> When we look at biblio, bitsavers, classiccmp, dbit, trailing-edge,
>>> village and many sites there clearly has already been a massive effort
>>> invested into scanning and transforming raw materials into useful
>>> download sites.
>>
>> For RSX specific issues, I'd recommend
>> ftp://ftp.update.uu.se/pub/pdp11/rsx, since I try to collect everything
>> I see and have there, and also give it some sort of structure. If there
>> are things people are searching for, which isn't there, or is placed in
>> odd places, I'm happy to hear about it. I can probably fix most things
>> rather quickly.
>
> I thought I had "update" in my list. I've downloaded all your PDP-11
> stuff.

I hope you redo that on a regular basis in that case, since I do write
new stuff... :-)

> I recently took the RSX20F diskettes from your collection and
> combined them with the source listings available in the DEC10/20
> collections. The sources are from 1979, but at least are in the public
> domain. I think that they include MACRO and TKB etc (but no RMS
> unfortunately). The listings have MEB (macro expansion binary)
> enabled, but I think I've worked out a mechanical way to get rid of
> the expansions.
>
> RSX20F was a combination of 11D and 11M, so there's some 11D info
> there. I have yet to see an RSX-11D distribution online.

RSX-20F is a very special beast.
But I'd be surprised if MACRO-11 anf TKB itself would be anywhere in
there. MACRO-11 was a separate development from RSX, and was shared by
all PDP-11 OSes. TKB was certainly a part of RSX, but I wonder what good
it would have been in -20F. You could not build -20F natively anyway. I
think it was normally built on Tops-10 or TOPS-20 by a cross compilation
environment.
-20F is an unmapped RSX system, with rather limited memory and resources.

>> But that archive is very much a live repository, and not trying to just
>> preserve for posterity. I keep uploading new versions of stuff I do, and
>> aim to have the latest version of whatever around, not neccesarily old,
>> duplicate or overlapping versions. I try to unify, refine and improve
>> all the time.
>>
>> And as a complement, I keep Mim.Update.UU.SE running, which is an RSX
>> system with a guest account, where people can play around, and actually
>> test some of the stuff, as that is where I do most work.
>
> I used that a few months ago. Worked really well. Helped me work out
> how to finally build a decent RSX environment of my own (after thirty
> or more years of thinking about it).

Happy to be of help. :-)

Now, if I could only finish up my large patch set to allow other sites
to get all the fixes I have in MIM...
(Just look at the result of a DEV TI: compared to any other RSX system,
and you'll see some of the stuff I've been doing...)

Johnny

[paramucho]

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 12:02:52 +0100, Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se>
wrote:

<snip>

>> I recently took the RSX20F diskettes from your collection and
>> combined them with the source listings available in the DEC10/20
>> collections. The sources are from 1979, but at least are in the public
>> domain. I think that they include MACRO and TKB etc (but no RMS
>> unfortunately). The listings have MEB (macro expansion binary)
>> enabled, but I think I've worked out a mechanical way to get rid of
>> the expansions.
>>
>> RSX20F was a combination of 11D and 11M, so there's some 11D info
>> there. I have yet to see an RSX-11D distribution online.
>
>RSX-20F is a very special beast.
>But I'd be surprised if MACRO-11 anf TKB itself would be anywhere in
>there. MACRO-11 was a separate development from RSX, and was shared by
>all PDP-11 OSes.

The combined MACRO development effort came a little later I think.
MACRO is on early RT-11 source kits, but I think it's dropped later
on. I don't know about RSX source kits.

> TKB was certainly a part of RSX, but I wonder what good
>it would have been in -20F. You could not build -20F natively anyway. I
>think it was normally built on Tops-10 or TOPS-20 by a cross compilation
>environment.

The listings are there:

http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/BB-H311B-RM/01/rsx20f-swskit/listings/mac.lis.html
http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/BB-H311B-RM/01/rsx20f-swskit/listings/tkb.lis.html

The following document describes the RSX20F source kit and build
instructions.

http://pdp-10.trailing-edge.com/BB-H311B-RM/01/rsx20f-swskit/documentation/building-rsx20f.mem

That said, I haven't found the actual .CMD files thus far. However,
the source kits seems to include everything you'd need for a source
build, and the document above has this:

The RSX-20F source pack contains all the files necessary to
assemble and build a RSX-20F executive and all available utility
tasks. In addition the pack has on it already built a complete
RSX-20F system with utility task images(TOPS-20/2040/2050/2060,
TOPS-10/1090, and TOPS-10/1091 in different areas). While the pack
as received does not have a bootable image and boot block it can be
easily converted to a bootable disk by using the applicable
supplied system.

I haven't read these documents in detail.

My interest in the kit is indirect via my reverse-engineering effort
with XXDP. Up until around 19xx XXDP maintenance listings have the
TOPS MACY11 cross-assembler in the page headers. After that
development shifts to a PDP-11 assembler, which might be 11D assember.
RSX20F is as close as I can get to an 11D kit.

There's a lot of interesting stuff in the RSX20F directories.



Ian

[Al Kossow]

On 11/28/11 12:40 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
> Hi Ulli,
>
> DSM 3.3 is available here: http://www.computerconservationsociety.org/simh.htm
>
>

It's good to see he put it on line. When they gave a talk at CHM last summer, he
mentioned he had some MUMPS and CORAL distributions.

I know there is a lot more PDP-11 software out there, but I don't think we'll see
it surface until the situation with the rights holders (Dave Carroll and/or HP) get
sorted out.

[Wolfgang]

> It's good to see he put it on line. When they gave a talk at CHM last summer, he
> mentioned he had some MUMPS and CORAL distributions.

Good to know that at least a site is known where these distributions are around. It'd be nice if someone could ping me is something gets available to the public.

> I know there is a lot more PDP-11 software out there, but I don't think we'll see
> it surface until the situation with the rights holders (Dave Carroll and/or HP) get
> sorted out.

You could be right. I am quite sure that HP & Co. have some interesting bits buried in their archives. But I don't think that the process with the rights holders you mentioned will be a fast one. Personnel resources at HP are tight for sure and I assume ancient software would be much at the bottom of their ToDo lists. Thats my thoughts and I am more than sure there are more competent people than me on this topics.

[Al Kossow]

On 11/28/11 10:10 AM, Wolfgang wrote:

>> I know there is a lot more PDP-11 software out there, but I don't think we'll see
>> it surface until the situation with the rights holders (Dave Carroll and/or HP) get
>> sorted out.
>

> You could be right. I am quite sure that HP& Co. have some interesting bits buried in their archives.

Doubtful. Corporate archives rarely save software. The only reason CHM saved the HP 1000 and Apollo archives
from disposal was we heard about them from insiders before they were discarded. DEC's archives were disposed
of first by Compaq, and then what was left by HP. HP gave CHM what was left of the non-legal parts of the
DEC corporate archives, and there was no software in it. VAX and Alpha were still supported at that time, but
support for those were sent to India over the last decade. DEC's LCG archive was saved by an individual around
the same time as the corporate archives were transfered. I don't know what happened to the archives of the mass
storage group in Colorado Springs.

The same appears to be true for all of the BUNCH. What we have been finding are people who saved things from
disposal, or who bought the rights to a product line (SDS 9xx, CDC 1700, are two examples of collections from
individuals)

If there is still software out there, it is going to be in an FE's garage or attic, or from field site backups.

[Wolfgang]

Thank you for clearance.

Let's go searching for DEC FE's ;) It should be (spoken for Austria) doable as they keep enjoying reunions and I remember a Website of DEC-Austria Alumnis... I'll try to get in touch with some.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb0jsa$im1$1...@dont-email.me>,

I guess I'm a little confused (or just naive) about some of this.
I thought Mentec got outright control of RT-11, RSTS and RSX from
DEC before the great shuffle started. I base this on the statement
taken from a License distributed with some of the older OSes that
has never been questioned as to its authenticity that I know of:

"Whereas, MENTEC owns the rights to the following PDP-11 Operating
Systems and as sociated layered products (RT-11 V5.3 or prior,
RSTS/E V9.6 or prior, RSX-11M V4 .3 or prior, RSX-11M PLUS V3.0
or prior) "

Of course, this would imply being as they were the maintainers they also
own the rights to newer versions.

It is known that they had copies of all the sources as they Y2Ked all
of it and kept making fixes even after that. i can only assume that
the original agreement wasn't what I thought. There is no doubt Mentec
had the Sources, but if HP is involved, then I doubt anyone will ever
see them. :-(

Now, the stuff I was talking about from the Software Sourcebooks is
mostly stuff that was written and sold by third parties. Most are
undoubtedly gone, but there is alwaus hope that one of the primaries
is still alive, has access and is willing to let the stuff go. And
the I would have hoped all of the DECUS stuff cold be found and preserved,
But I have been wrong before. ;-)

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-11-28 19.57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article<jb0jsa$im1$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Al Kossow<a...@bitsavers.org> writes:
>> On 11/28/11 10:10 AM, Wolfgang wrote:
>>
>>>> I know there is a lot more PDP-11 software out there, but I don't think we'll see
>>>> it surface until the situation with the rights holders (Dave Carroll and/or HP) get
>>>> sorted out.
>>>
>>> You could be right. I am quite sure that HP& Co. have some interesting bits buried in their archives.
>>
>> Doubtful. Corporate archives rarely save software. The only reason CHM saved the HP 1000 and Apollo archives
>> from disposal was we heard about them from insiders before they were discarded. DEC's archives were disposed
>> of first by Compaq, and then what was left by HP. HP gave CHM what was left of the non-legal parts of the
>> DEC corporate archives, and there was no software in it. VAX and Alpha were still supported at that time, but
>> support for those were sent to India over the last decade. DEC's LCG archive was saved by an individual around
>> the same time as the corporate archives were transfered. I don't know what happened to the archives of the mass
>> storage group in Colorado Springs.
>>
>> The same appears to be true for all of the BUNCH. What we have been finding are people who saved things from
>> disposal, or who bought the rights to a product line (SDS 9xx, CDC 1700, are two examples of collections from
>> individuals)
>>
>> If there is still software out there, it is going to be in an FE's garage or attic, or from field site backups.
>>
>
> I guess I'm a little confused (or just naive) about some of this.

Confused, maybe... :-)

> I thought Mentec got outright control of RT-11, RSTS and RSX from
> DEC before the great shuffle started. I base this on the statement
> taken from a License distributed with some of the older OSes that
> has never been questioned as to its authenticity that I know of:

"Outright control" is overstating it. They bought the stuff from DEC,
but it was not totally handed over. DEC still maintained some degree of
control after this takeover.
And that is what is still biting us to this day. But the holder of that
control is now HP.

> "Whereas, MENTEC owns the rights to the following PDP-11 Operating
> Systems and as sociated layered products (RT-11 V5.3 or prior,
> RSTS/E V9.6 or prior, RSX-11M V4 .3 or prior, RSX-11M PLUS V3.0
> or prior) "
>
> Of course, this would imply being as they were the maintainers they also
> own the rights to newer versions.

Right. Within limits...
By the way, Mentec only took control of RSX-11M-PLUS after V4.4, which
was released by DEC in 1992 or if it was 1993.
Mentec then released V4.5 and V4.6.

> It is known that they had copies of all the sources as they Y2Ked all
> of it and kept making fixes even after that. i can only assume that
> the original agreement wasn't what I thought. There is no doubt Mentec
> had the Sources, but if HP is involved, then I doubt anyone will ever
> see them. :-(

Mentec had the sources, yes. Mentec did not have full control. I thought
everyone knew this, as it has been an ongoing "problem" for ever.
What I can say is that I know there are people who still do have access
to the sources of the OSes.
However, layered products might be a bigger problem...

> Now, the stuff I was talking about from the Software Sourcebooks is
> mostly stuff that was written and sold by third parties. Most are
> undoubtedly gone, but there is alwaus hope that one of the primaries
> is still alive, has access and is willing to let the stuff go. And
> the I would have hoped all of the DECUS stuff cold be found and preserved,
> But I have been wrong before. ;-)

I think most of the DECUS stuff is definitely preserved. Much of other
stuff is more of a question mark.

Johnny

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> spake the secret code
<jb0gtt$thb$1...@dont-email.me> thusly:

>I know there is a lot more PDP-11 software out there, but I don't think
>we'll see it surface until the situation with the rights holders
>(Dave Carroll and/or HP) get sorted out.

Until then, people should be making personal backups/archives of the
data from old media to multiple copies on newer media and tending to
those new media copies periodically to prevent bit rot. Yes?
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 version available for download
<http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com/the-direct3d-graphics-pipeline/>

Legalize Adulthood! <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:

(snip)

> I know there is a lot more PDP-11 software out there, but I don't
> think we'll see it surface until the situation with the rights
> holders (Dave Carroll and/or HP) get sorted out.

I wonder if HP would be interested in some good publicity.

If CHM would make a press release ...

"Today HP has released xxx to benefit hobbyists and historians..."

Maybe not front page news, but it might not be so bad to have
good things mentioned about HP.

-- glen

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:

(snip)

> Doubtful. Corporate archives rarely save software. The only
> reason CHM saved the HP 1000 and Apollo archives from disposal
> was we heard about them from insiders before they were discarded.

I wonder if anyone, possibly CHM, has thought about contacting
congress about the problem of software preservation?

First, while "fair use" seems to be reasonably understood in
the case of printed works, it seems less understood, or less
used, in the case of machine-readable works.

It might be that congress would be interested in some distraction
from there current problems, and could pass some special
legislation related to preservation and access to older
software (and even hardware) resources.

Presumably that would have to be done such as not to force
release of actively maintained products. Maybe, though, an
escrow system to help ensure that important things are preserved.

-- glen

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb18hk$5t3$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Doubtful. Corporate archives rarely save software. The only
>> reason CHM saved the HP 1000 and Apollo archives from disposal
>> was we heard about them from insiders before they were discarded.
>
> I wonder if anyone, possibly CHM, has thought about contacting
> congress about the problem of software preservation?

That's all we need more government involvement.

>
> First, while "fair use" seems to be reasonably understood in
> the case of printed works, it seems less understood, or less
> used, in the case of machine-readable works.

Let's see, apply 'fair use" to an OS. You can load no more than 5% of
the IP. Somehow, I don't think the concept translates. :-)

>
> It might be that congress would be interested in some distraction
> from there current problems, and could pass some special
> legislation related to preservation and access to older
> software (and even hardware) resources.

None of their business. Maybe you need to get the "Occupy" people onm
your side. After all, what you are trying to do is insist that you have
a right to someone else's IP. Just like they have a right to the fruits
of someone else's labors.

>
> Presumably that would have to be done such as not to force
> release of actively maintained products.

Actively maintained or not it is still someone else's private property.
I have an MGB in a garage that I have not touched in over 5 years. Does
that mean that someone else should be allowed to take it out and drive
it withiout my permission?

> Maybe, though, an
> escrow system to help ensure that important things are preserved.

Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
other people's IP? Don't get me wrong. There is nothing I would like
more than to be allowed to take the RSTS Sources and play with them.
Modify them! Port them! All of this, But, I certainly don't claim
that because the owner no longer cares I somehow have a right to do
this. Or that the government should force the owner to let me do this.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb17l6$2rs$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>> I know there is a lot more PDP-11 software out there, but I don't
>> think we'll see it surface until the situation with the rights
>> holders (Dave Carroll and/or HP) get sorted out.
>
> I wonder if HP would be interested in some good publicity.

Publicity only works is the public understands what you are talking about.

>
> If CHM would make a press release ...

I keep seeing this. Who or what is CHM?

>
> "Today HP has released xxx to benefit hobbyists and historians..."

And if the reader has no idea what xxx is they will probably see no
"benefit" and the stock-holders will want to know why HP is wasting
their time and money on this.

>
> Maybe not front page news, but it might not be so bad to have
> good things mentioned about HP.

They don't care about having bad news published, I doubt they would be
interested in something that you see as good news and the rest of the
world doesn't even understand. Front page? I doubt it wold make the
bottom corner of the obit page. Even on a really slow news day.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>And the other is The Software Tools Virtual Operating System. This too
>had a SIG. And there were tapes distributed for more machines than most
>of us have ever seen. There were versions for nearly every system in use
>during its prime. I personally used it on two different (and some would
>say rather obscure) systems. It was available on the PDP-11 under RSX,
>RT-11, RSTS, IAS, Unix, DOS and something called "S". I have been in
>touch with the originator of the whole system. No one is aware of the
>existence of any copies of an STVOS User Group Tape.

I think Software Tools was originally written for Pr1mos and I am pretty
sure that Peter Wen (formerly from gatech) still has a source tape for
the Pr1me.

It was... well... sort of like cygnus for minicomputers.. and like cygnus
it has some integration issues....
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Al Kossow]

On 11/29/11 7:05 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> I think Software Tools was originally written for Pr1mos and I am pretty
> sure that Peter Wen (formerly from gatech) still has a source tape for
> the Pr1me.
>

Could you check with Peter about this?

[Al Kossow]

On 11/29/11 6:01 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

>> If CHM would make a press release ...
>
> I keep seeing this. Who or what is CHM?
>

The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, where I am the Software Curator.
Part of my job is to find software collections, and try to get them released
at least for non-commercial use.

>>
>> "Today HP has released xxx to benefit hobbyists and historians..."
>
> And if the reader has no idea what xxx is they will probably see no
> "benefit" and the stock-holders will want to know why HP is wasting
> their time and money on this.
>

Exactly. There has never been a press release about HP giving CHM the right
to distribute the code for Apollo, HP2000/1000 and the 68000 members of the
9000 family because of the time it takes to put the software in a state where
the public could look at it. The biggest splash was when Steve Jobs gave
us the right to release the Macpaint and Quickdraw sources, and I doubt very
many normal folks even noticed.

Given what I know of the current situation, it would be a good thing to try to
find surviving copies of PDP-11 software and start bundling it up so that there
is something to release in the future. That's about all I can say right now.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb2sbq$j4j$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>And the other is The Software Tools Virtual Operating System. This too
>>had a SIG. And there were tapes distributed for more machines than most
>>of us have ever seen. There were versions for nearly every system in use
>>during its prime. I personally used it on two different (and some would
>>say rather obscure) systems. It was available on the PDP-11 under RSX,
>>RT-11, RSTS, IAS, Unix, DOS and something called "S". I have been in
>>touch with the originator of the whole system. No one is aware of the
>>existence of any copies of an STVOS User Group Tape.
>
> I think Software Tools was originally written for Pr1mos

Not originally for Primos but they were definitely one of host systems
during its heyday.

Look at the paper I put on my website:
http://www.cs.uofs.edu/~bill/p495-hall.pdf

There were a lot of system supported from micros to mainframes.

> and I am pretty
> sure that Peter Wen (formerly from gatech) still has a source tape for
> the Pr1me.

gatech was the home for the Primos version. I once tried to contact
someone there about it (but I don't think my contact name was Mr. Wen)
to see if anything was left but never got any replies. If you know
him and don't mind asking, I would love to get copies of more of the
release tapes. I am pretty sure that during its prime the tapes
contained the complete package for all the supported systems.

>
> It was... well... sort of like cygnus for minicomputers.. and like cygnus
> it has some integration issues....

Well, it was defintely more ambitious than Cygnus in what systems it
wanted to support. I always equated it to POSIX. It tried to present
a common API (based loosely on the Unix API which was, itself, built on
the Software Tools paradigm) across numerous very heterogenous systems.

I also frequently ask faculty here when we discuss my projects (after
which they turn away and snicker, but I am pretty thick-skinned) where
they think POSIX would have been if this work had continued eventually
blending into what became POSIX rather than throwing all of this in the
trash and starting again almost 10 years later.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb30ao$bqf$1...@dont-email.me>,

Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> writes:
> On 11/29/11 6:01 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>>> If CHM would make a press release ...
>>
>> I keep seeing this. Who or what is CHM?
>>
>
> The Computer History Museum in Mountain View, where I am the Software Curator.

I suspected as much, but i didn't know of your connection with them.
they couldn't have a better Curator. I always wanted a job like that but
I have all but given up on the notion. Which is why I just passed a lot
of my old hardware on to someone who probably has a better chance of
setting up a computer museum.

> Part of my job is to find software collections, and try to get them released
> at least for non-commercial use.

Hmmm.... Interesting. I really need to get at least the list of
companies from the Software Sourcebook on line so that people can
begin trying to contact them to see if there is anything left to
save.

>
>>>
>>> "Today HP has released xxx to benefit hobbyists and historians..."
>>
>> And if the reader has no idea what xxx is they will probably see no
>> "benefit" and the stock-holders will want to know why HP is wasting
>> their time and money on this.
>>
>
> Exactly. There has never been a press release about HP giving CHM the right
> to distribute the code for Apollo, HP2000/1000 and the 68000 members of the
> 9000 family because of the time it takes to put the software in a state where
> the public could look at it. The biggest splash was when Steve Jobs gave
> us the right to release the Macpaint and Quickdraw sources, and I doubt very
> many normal folks even noticed.

I follow this niche and I never heard of any of this. Sadly, my Apollo
went in the skip 2 decades ago. Now there was a room heater!! Loved
DomainOS.

>
> Given what I know of the current situation, it would be a good thing to try to
> find surviving copies of PDP-11 software and start bundling it up so that there
> is something to release in the future. That's about all I can say right now.

If the time comes, I have quite a bit of PDP-11 stuff. But nothing in
source (I still have a disk I got from St. Peter's College that was
supposed to have RSTS src on it but I was never able to find it. I
have kept the disk intact in the hopes that someday I may be able to
do it.)

But you'll have to pardon me if i seem a little skeptical. I have heard
this before from about a half dozen differnt people over more than a decade
of time. All tried. All failed. But I certainly wish you the best of
luck.

[Al Kossow]

On 11/29/11 8:57 AM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> But you'll have to pardon me if i seem a little skeptical. I have heard
> this before from about a half dozen differnt people over more than a decade
> of time. All tried. All failed. But I certainly wish you the best of
> luck.
>

The current holder of Mentec's IP is sympathetic to all of this. That is all
I can currently say.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

(snip, I wrote)

>> I wonder if anyone, possibly CHM, has thought about contacting
>> congress about the problem of software preservation?

> That's all we need more government involvement.

(I also wrote)

>> First, while "fair use" seems to be reasonably understood in
>> the case of printed works, it seems less understood, or less
>> used, in the case of machine-readable works.

> Let's see, apply 'fair use" to an OS. You can load no more than
> 5% of the IP. Somehow, I don't think the concept translates. :-)

Hmmm, I wonder in normal use what fraction of an OS is actually
executed. It might be only about 5%.


(snip)

>> Presumably that would have to be done such as not to force
>> release of actively maintained products.

> Actively maintained or not it is still someone else's private property.
> I have an MGB in a garage that I have not touched in over 5 years. Does
> that mean that someone else should be allowed to take it out and drive
> it withiout my permission?

Try parking in on a public street for 5 years, and then see
if you still own it.

>> Maybe, though, an escrow system to help ensure that important
>> things are preserved.

> Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
> other people's IP? Don't get me wrong. There is nothing I would like
> more than to be allowed to take the RSTS Sources and play with them.
> Modify them! Port them! All of this, But, I certainly don't claim
> that because the owner no longer cares I somehow have a right to do
> this. Or that the government should force the owner to let me do this.

I was hoping to get some discussion, and it seems that has started.

OK, say that the owner does decide to release it but doesn't have
any more copies? Even more, nobody else does either? (Probably
happens often enough.)

As another example, should presidential papers belong to the president
or to the government (historians)? As far as I understand it,
the current answer is government.

How much of software development, especially in the past, was paid
for with (indirectly) government money?

To get back to the car example, say parts on your car start to
wear out, as some naturally do. You go to buy replacements, but
the company refuses to sell them. Now, in most cases there are
others companies that sell replacement parts as long as there
is a market for them. Could the car company claim IP rights
(copyright possibly) on those parts and stop others from selling them?
Even more, could the original maker decide not to sell them, such
that your expensive car was now worthless? They wouldn't stay in
business very long that way, but maybe they don't care.

(Anyone try to buy Delorean parts lately?)

-- glen

[Robert Adamson <rwadamsonhotmail<dot>com>]

On 29 Nov 2011 13:56:17 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:

>Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
>other people's IP?

Yes, I agree with this but only up to a point. Where do you think we
would be if everyone decided that 'their' IP should wither as they
choose? Still on stone axes or maybe not so far as that? Not to
overstate the case for 11 software in particular, but I think there IS
a right or at least a duty to ensure that our heritage is not lost.
Akin to burning books IMHO.

[Fritz Wuehler]

> > I wonder if anyone, possibly CHM, has thought about contacting
> > congress about the problem of software preservation?

Oh don't worry about that. They have been "preserving" everything that's
gone through the internet and it is all available to all the wrong
people. If you ever need to make sure something is archived, just email it
or upload or download it. It will be around somewhere. You just won't be
able to get it unless you get one of those jobs you can't talk about.

> That's all we need more government involvement.

No shit.

> Actively maintained or not it is still someone else's private property.
> I have an MGB in a garage that I have not touched in over 5 years. Does
> that mean that someone else should be allowed to take it out and drive
> it withiout my permission?

If new MGBs could be made without affecting old MGBs and at no cost, then
it's hard to say someone shouldn't get a copy for nothing. I don't think
your analogy is much of an analogy.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Al Kossow <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote:

(snip)

> Exactly. There has never been a press release about HP giving CHM the right
> to distribute the code for Apollo, HP2000/1000 and the 68000 members of the
> 9000 family

Hmm, I have a 9000/220 that I should get running some day.
I didn't know about this release! How much of the 9000 series
is available? Is HP-UX for the 9000/3xx and 9000/4xx available?

(snip)

-- glen

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb3d3i$mce$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>
> (snip, I wrote)
>>> I wonder if anyone, possibly CHM, has thought about contacting
>>> congress about the problem of software preservation?
>
>> That's all we need more government involvement.
>
> (I also wrote)
>>> First, while "fair use" seems to be reasonably understood in
>>> the case of printed works, it seems less understood, or less
>>> used, in the case of machine-readable works.
>
>> Let's see, apply 'fair use" to an OS. You can load no more than
>> 5% of the IP. Somehow, I don't think the concept translates. :-)
>
> Hmmm, I wonder in normal use what fraction of an OS is actually
> executed. It might be only about 5%.
>

Last tme I looked you had to load 100% in order for it to actually
do anything. :-)

>
> (snip)
>>> Presumably that would have to be done such as not to force
>>> release of actively maintained products.
>
>> Actively maintained or not it is still someone else's private property.
>> I have an MGB in a garage that I have not touched in over 5 years. Does
>> that mean that someone else should be allowed to take it out and drive
>> it withiout my permission?
>
> Try parking in on a public street for 5 years, and then see
> if you still own it.

As long as I keep a license plate on it and don't come up against things
like snow plowing in the winter, why not? But that's irrelevant. We
aren't talking about the government impounding it we are talking about
the government letting someone else use it. If they take my car for
being parked illegally on the street they can't use it, all they can do
is park it somewhere else. After a long drawn out court battle they might
be able to take away my ownership and then they own it and can do what ever
they wish with it. Now, try applying that to old OSes and see if it still
sounds like something you want to do. Oh, and in reality, if they do win
and take it away from me, they will auction it off to the highest bidder
and it then becomes his property to do with as he pleases. Still sound
like a reasonable solution to the situation with old computer programs?

>
>>> Maybe, though, an escrow system to help ensure that important
>>> things are preserved.
>
>> Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
>> other people's IP? Don't get me wrong. There is nothing I would like
>> more than to be allowed to take the RSTS Sources and play with them.
>> Modify them! Port them! All of this, But, I certainly don't claim
>> that because the owner no longer cares I somehow have a right to do
>> this. Or that the government should force the owner to let me do this.
>
> I was hoping to get some discussion, and it seems that has started.
>
> OK, say that the owner does decide to release it but doesn't have
> any more copies? Even more, nobody else does either? (Probably
> happens often enough.)

Then it is really rather moot, isn't it? What's the point of releasing
something non-existant?

>
> As another example, should presidential papers belong to the president
> or to the government (historians)? As far as I understand it,
> the current answer is government.

That is already covered by existing law. Personal as opposed to a work
for hire. DEC didn't write any OSes for the PDP-11. People did. But
those people were working for and being paid by DEC to do precisely that,
therefore, they are works for hire and belong to DEC. It can be argued
that "Presidential Papers" (what ever that means) are works for hire as
he was being paid to be the President. I'll let the courts decide that
one as I don't see any value in anything any president has written in most
of my lifetime.

>
> How much of software development, especially in the past, was paid
> for with (indirectly) government money?

Also irrelevant. I know where you are going. Work done at the sole
expense of the government is supposed to be public domain. That applies
to things like GCS, done by Lanse Leech and others at West Point and,
it was put int he public domain. Another is the MUMPS Hospital/Mediacal
Office System called Vista. But there are also works done by people and
companies under contract. Paid for by the government but because of the
terms of the contract they remain the property of the company or individual.
That is because the government wasn't paing for the program but rather
for services from the contractor and the program is merely an incidental.
All of this is already well covered by existing legal precedence.

>
> To get back to the car example, say parts on your car start to
> wear out, as some naturally do. You go to buy replacements, but
> the company refuses to sell them.

Happens all the time. As long as you are not refused service because
of your race, sex, religon, etc. they are free to seel to and refuse
to sell to anyone they please.

> Now, in most cases there are
> others companies that sell replacement parts as long as there
> is a market for them. Could the car company claim IP rights
> (copyright possibly) on those parts and stop others from selling them?

Only if they can prove that the part somehow violates their copyrights or
trade secrets. Until Sun licensed production to the orient, who other than
Sun could make a Sparc CPU? Who other than AT&T ever made a WE32000 family
CPU? AMD made clones of Intel's cpus. Were they stopped from selling them?
Why not?

> Even more, could the original maker decide not to sell them, such
> that your expensive car was now worthless?

I just bought a USB turntable in order to digitize all my vinyl. I would
have liked to use a laser turntable so that there would be no additional
wear on my disks. Sadly, the technology is the property of one man and
he will not license it so the turntables sell for thousands of dollars.
Should the government force him to release his technology so that cheap
rip-offs can be manufactured?

> They wouldn't stay in
> business very long that way, but maybe they don't care.

This guy only needs to sell a handful a year to stay in business. And
he seems to be doing OK. Keeping things expensive is standard business
in lots of things, How many Lamborghini's are manufactured each year?
What do they cost? Been in business longer than I have been alive.

>
> (Anyone try to buy Delorean parts lately?)

Delorean is out of business and if the parts aren't avialable it is most
likely because there isn't enough of a market to sell them. When British
Leyland Motors went under the MG got abandoned. Austingot bought. But
Triumph had a totally different fate. Someone bought all of the machinery
from the factory and continued to manufacture parts. I used to have one.
I could buy all the parts needed from Rimmer Bros. in england to build a
Triumph Spitfire from the ground up. it would cost a fortune, but it was
doable. I bought a lot of parts fromthem when I was still driving mine.
There was enough business in the US alone that they came over here twice
a year with a half-dozen conexs of parts to sell at shows. And that is
business.

[Al Kossow]

On 11/29/11 11:51 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> (Anyone try to buy Delorean parts lately?)
>

Completely off topic, but is actually quite easy. You can even buy NOS
cars.
http://delorean.com/

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <1gdad75rtbj1or80s...@4ax.com>,

Robert Adamson <rwadamson<at>hotmail<dot>com> writes:
> On 29 Nov 2011 13:56:17 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> wrote:
>
>>Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
>>other people's IP?
>
> Yes, I agree with this but only up to a point. Where do you think we
> would be if everyone decided that 'their' IP should wither as they
> choose?

But most don't. And it is still irrelevant. It is their property and
no one should be allowed to take or dictate the use of someone else's
property.

> Still on stone axes or maybe not so far as that? Not to
> overstate the case for 11 software in particular, but I think there IS
> a right

No one has a "right" to another's property. I need a kidney. Can I take
yours against your will? How about a lung? Your heart?

> or at least a duty

Duty?? just how am I beholding to anyone other than myself and those that
I have willingly taken on that responsibility?

> to ensure that our heritage is not lost.
> Akin to burning books IMHO.

If I write a book I am well within my rights to burn the only copy if that
is what I choose. Why should it be otherwise? Remember, we are talking
about an individuals rights to his own property and not some third party
trying to censor anything.

[Al Kossow]

On 11/29/11 12:34 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> If I write a book I am well within my rights to burn the only copy if that
> is what I choose. Why should it be otherwise? Remember, we are talking
> about an individuals rights to his own property and not some third party
> trying to censor anything.
>

Bill has made his opinions on this subject VERY well known over the years.
There is no point in arguing about it.

If I were Bill, though, I wouldn't be complaining, as he has done farther
up in this thread that software has disappeared, since, as he has just said,
it was within their rights to discard it.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb3gla$rgp$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not complaining, lamenting. The owners didn't destroy any of it, they
just didn't preserve it. I would hope that if sources can be found and
contact with the owners can be made the majority of them would give
their blessing. But I fear much of it won't be found. I shouold mention,
I guess that in my own defense, I have disks containing programs I wrote
over 30 years ago. Sadly, my work is not of the same value as something
like IAS.

[Charles Richmond]

"Al Kossow" <a...@bitsavers.org> wrote in message
news:jb3fgh$jna$1...@dont-email.me...

Yes, the History Channel program on 80's Tech mentioned this company in the
Houston, TX area that will sell you a complete DeLorean for $30 or $35
thousand dollars. This web page is from that company.

Also OT, but I remember seeing a project once 20 years ago or so in an
electronics magazine... where you could build your own laser turntable to
play phonograph records via laser. The article mentioned that you must keep
the records *clean*, because dust particles evidently created quite a bad
noise with the laser.


--
+<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+
| Charles Richmond nume...@aquaporin4.com |
+<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>+

[Nomen Nescio]

bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> In article <1gdad75rtbj1or80s...@4ax.com>,
> Robert Adamson <rwadamson<at>hotmail<dot>com> writes:
> > On 29 Nov 2011 13:56:17 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
> >>other people's IP?

I admire your principles and probably share quite a few. I think where most
people are beginning to differ is when it comes to unused software and
doc. Those are both certainly worth money and belong to the people who own
them, but unlike tangible property making copies of them doesn't do any harm
to the originals or affect them in any way. Obviously this is a grey area
and if something is still marketed or held and sold occasionally there is an
issue of theft. But when something is abandoned, however you define what
that means, most people seem to feel making and using copies is legitimate
because it does no harm and doesn't disturb the originals, if we can even
define what "original" means.

> But most don't. And it is still irrelevant. It is their property and
> no one should be allowed to take or dictate the use of someone else's
> property.

That's true but again how do we define "using"? There is using that affects
the owner's tangible property, I think everyone would agree that's
wrong. Using any tangible item inevitably results in wear and tear and there
is also the risk of unintentional damage beyond wear and tear. With copies
of software and doc those issues are irrelevant. Making copies of stuff
lying around given they were not stolen in the first place or copying from
existing licensed but old and unsupported or non-marketed copies is like
taking a flame from a candle. What harm is done by that? The candle hasn't
been affected at all.

> No one has a "right" to another's property. I need a kidney. Can I take
> yours against your will? How about a lung? Your heart?

We had the MG analogy and this argument is exactly the same thing. It isn't
a good analogy because it's comparing something tangible there is only one
of with software and doc that can be duplicated endlessly without affecting
the original at all. The only issue is if those copies cause someone a loss
of business or if it causes something they own that has real (not book)
value to depreciate, then it is wrong.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <2b1cc3aaa9f1d804...@dizum.com>,

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> writes:
> bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
>> In article <1gdad75rtbj1or80s...@4ax.com>,
>> Robert Adamson <rwadamson<at>hotmail<dot>com> writes:
>> > On 29 Nov 2011 13:56:17 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
>> >>other people's IP?
>
> I admire your principles and probably share quite a few. I think where most
> people are beginning to differ is when it comes to unused software and
> doc.

Why does "unused" have anything to do with it? I have stuff in boxes
in my attic that have been "unused" since I packed them for the trip
back from germany in 1979. Are they any less mine?

> Those are both certainly worth money

Value or percieved value are also irrelevant.

> and belong to the people who own
> them,

The only thing that matters and you seem to accept that ownership exists.

> but unlike tangible property

How is software not "tangible". It physically exists, just like all other
property.

> making copies of them doesn't do any harm
> to the originals or affect them in any way.

Why is that relevant? It is still someone else's property.

> Obviously this is a grey area

How is it "grey"? It belongs to someone else. you do not have their
permission to use it. Seems rather black and white to me. The whole
concept of "grey areas" and "abandonware" is nothing more than people
rationalizing the theft of someone else's property. Just like people
who cheat on their taxes because they feel the taxes are unfair anyway
or commit innsurance fraud because it doesn't hurt anyone, just the
innsurance company.

> and if something is still marketed or held and sold occasionally there is an
> issue of theft.

Theft is theft. The marketability or saleability of an item has no bearing
on the matter. Must be a lot Thomists in the computer hobbyist field.

> But when something is abandoned, however you define what
> that means,

Hobbyists seem to have very loose definitions of this. I have known
people, here, who have had no qualms about using the PDP-11 OSes without
license or permission even when they were still being actively maintained
and sold.

> most people seem to feel making and using copies is legitimate
> because it does no harm and doesn't disturb the originals, if we can even
> define what "original" means.

Rationalization. Non-sequitor. A persons belief that "it does no harm"
and "doesn't disturb the originals" is totally irrelevant. You are taking
and using someone else's property without their permission. And, while
most here still choose to deny it (I believe that is the stage called
denial) I would argue that it has done harm. Many, many moons ago I was
involved in trying to get legal hobbyist use for the PDP-11 OSes. The
whole deal fell thru. The reason I was given by my contact was that the
execs were well aware of the hobbyist community and took offense at the
cavalier attitude they showed regarding the ownership of those OSes and
thus decided not to continue discussions.

>
>> But most don't. And it is still irrelevant. It is their property and
>> no one should be allowed to take or dictate the use of someone else's
>> property.
>
> That's true but again how do we define "using"?

The Clinton school of debate? How do we define sex?

> There is using that affects
> the owner's tangible property, I think everyone would agree that's
> wrong. Using any tangible item inevitably results in wear and tear and there
> is also the risk of unintentional damage beyond wear and tear.

So, you have come up with personal definitions for "using", "tangible"
and "wrong". If I am allowed to redefine the terms, anything becomes
possible. If I go into a local bank and take $100,000 at the point of
a gun is it a loan if I say it is?

> With copies
> of software and doc those issues are irrelevant.

True, but that does not affect ownership or the owner's rights regarding
the disposition of his property. Non-owners have no claim on anything
for which they are non-owners.

> Making copies of stuff
> lying around given they were not stolen in the first place

But the copy is stolen. I have dozens of Microsoft OS and Product disks
"lying around" my office at the University. If someone makes a copy isn't
the software being stolen?

> or copying from
> existing licensed but old and unsupported or non-marketed copies

What does age have to do with it?
What does level of support have to do with it?
What does level of marketing have to do with it?
(Ask VMS users about marketing!)
None of them change the ownership of the property or the owners rights
regarding same. And none of them transfer any rights to third parties.

> is like
> taking a flame from a candle. What harm is done by that? The candle hasn't
> been affected at all.

Meaningless example. You have not taken a copy of the flame.

What harm is done? One might argue that everytime one performs an immoral
act it diminishes them as a person. Is there harm in that? I guess if you
are amoral, none. But I would hope that most people choose to be something
beyond amoral.

>
>> No one has a "right" to another's property. I need a kidney. Can I take
>> yours against your will? How about a lung? Your heart?
>
> We had the MG analogy and this argument is exactly the same thing. It isn't
> a good analogy because it's comparing something tangible

There's that word again. let's look at what the dictionary says:
tan-gi-ble [tan-juh-buhl]
1. real or actual, rather than imaginary or
visionary: ie. the tangible benefits of sunshine.
2. capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.

Seems to me that software meets these two so I guess it is tangible afterall.

> there is only one
> of with software and doc that can be duplicated endlessly without affecting
> the original at all.

I still don't see the relevance of this. I can "duplicate" a book (in
particular an eBook) "endlessly without affecting the original at all".
Does that make copying it not stealing it?

> The only issue is if those copies cause someone a loss
> of business

So it is only stealing if it costs someone money? Care to point out that
definition of stealing in any dictionary?

> or if it causes something they own that has real (not book)
> value to depreciate,

And why do you get to decide what has value and what that value is when
dealing with someone else's property?

> then it is wrong.

Rationalization is so easy.

Most here may think this is just meaningless argument, but you could be
wrong. We have a computer ethics course, taught by the Philosophy Dept.
that is a required course for all CS students. I am going to stop in to
see the Professor who teaches it and find out if this is a topic they
cover and if it isn't try to convince him that it probably needs to be.

(Beyond my upbringing which greatly affects my behaviour, you have to
realize that my education is not just in Computers. My degree also has
a concentration in Theology which also means an extensive grounding in
Philosophy. There is apparently a lot to be said about Liberal Arts
education in addition to technical training.)

[John Wallace]

On Nov 30, 2:31 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <2b1cc3aaa9f1d804dbfdebb8579d6...@dizum.com>,
>         Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> writes:
>
> > billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
> >> In article <1gdad75rtbj1or80ssc78g1a81mqk0u...@4ax.com>,

> >>        Robert Adamson <rwadamson<at>hotmail<dot>com> writes:

> >> > On 29 Nov 2011 13:56:17 GMT, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)

> billg...@cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

"You are taking and using someone else's property without their
permission."

Why do most countries have copyright laws, Bill? Why are those
copyright laws distinct and separate from the laws relating to actual
theft of material property? (It might be something to do with keeping
lawyers in employment, it often is, but...)

Copying software (or books, or music, or movies) without the owner's
permission is not generally theft, whatever the likes of the RIAA/MPAA
might call it. Not theft as defined by lawyers anyway. Such
unauthorised copying may well be illegal in some jurisdictions, and
others may understandably consider it immoral and unjust, but any
offence committed will not usually be that of theft.



Mind you perhaps I'm being too generous to the lawyers here.

[Jerome H. Fine]

>Bill Gunshannon wrote:

                                          Maybe, though, an
escrow system to help ensure that important things are preserved.

Same thing.  Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
other people's IP?  Don't get me wrong.  There is nothing I would like
more than to be allowed to take the RSTS Sources and play with them.
Modify them!  Port them!  All of this, But, I certainly don't claim
that because the owner no longer cares I somehow have a right to do
this.  Or that the government should force the owner to let me do this.

I understand your point of view.  Your position is well justified and probably
most of what you state is legally correct as well.

There is one point that I have not seen addressed during any discussion.

Let me start with the MGB.  Assume that a specific part is broken
and the part is somehow covered under copyright laws (it could be
a computer with copyrighted software).  You want to drive the MGB
and are willing to pay an MGB dealer a fair market price to have
the broken part replaced or repaired.  However, MGB finds that
sales are so low that it would be unable to make a profit if it provided
the part at a fair market price.  And if it provided the part at a price
which allowed it to make a profit (assume for this discussion that
price would be double the original cost of the car), then that would
not be a cost you (or probably most anyone else) would be willing
to pay.

I am not sure about warranty laws, let alone laws about providing
parts after the warranty expires, but what would be your position
about the broken MGB part?

In a similar fashion, what about a bug in operating system software
which crashes the operating system, but which the manufacturer
decides to abandon (and to not allow anyone to access the source
code so the bug can be found and fixed)?

I have other additional questions along this same line.  I suppose
that this line deals with ethics as opposed to profits, although it
might be reasonable to realize that in the long run, ethical companies
are more likely to attract mostly ethical customers which in the
long run might actually produce higher profits.  However, if you
wish to avoid the part ethics plays in running a company, I would
agree to do so.

Jerome Fine

[Jerome H. Fine]

I am sending this again since I don't see it being passed along.
Please ignore if you already have it.

>Bill Gunshannon wrote:

                                          Maybe, though, an
escrow system to help ensure that important things are preserved.

Same thing.  Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
other people's IP?  Don't get me wrong.  There is nothing I would like
more than to be allowed to take the RSTS Sources and play with them.
Modify them!  Port them!  All of this, But, I certainly don't claim
that because the owner no longer cares I somehow have a right to do
this.  Or that the government should force the owner to let me do this.

I understand your point of view.  Your position is well justified and probably

[Fritz Wuehler]

"Jerome H. Fine" <ever...@nospam.com> wrote:

> most of what you state is legally correct as well.

I don't take issue with that on this particular quote you responded to but
in fact most lawsuits have to prove actual damage and not just philosphical
theft to have merit. I think most of what Bill has stated is based on his
religio-philosophy and doesn't line up with the legal system. I am not
knocking religion or ethics or morality all of which are essential to a
healthy society, but I believe Bill's points are based on his system of
ethics and morality rather than practical matters. The problem is the legal
system isn't based on moral considerations but practical considerations such
as damage and this is proper because you cannot assess damage or award
fees etc. except based on actual loss or gain. Unfortunately the law has
slid away from these concepts towards politically correct punishment of
perceived wrongdoing, which is more often than not more of a perversion of
justice than the incident being judged itself (judicial activism etc.)

> In a similar fashion, what about a bug in operating system software
> which crashes the operating system, but which the manufacturer
> decides to abandon (and to not allow anyone to access the source
> code so the bug can be found and fixed)?

Source is not required to fix program bugs including OS bugs. It can
certainly help but it is not necessary and in some cases not even
desirable. I say this as someone who is paid to reverse engineer and modify
operatings systems for which I don't have source.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <4ed6f1fe$0$294$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

Sounds like you have a problem. Doesn't change the ownership or the
laws concering such.

>
> I am not sure about warranty laws, let alone laws about providing
> parts after the warranty expires, but what would be your position
> about the broken MGB part?

See above. Of course, the most likely effect would be a decline in sales
of that car and the company going out of business. But let me throw some
reality into this using your example. In 1972 I bouhgt a brand new MGB.
I had it barely 6 months when some idiot hit it in a parking lot. The
plastic parts for the side light cost over $200. Now, realize, in 1972
the whole car cost just over $2000. British Leyland was the only provider
of that part. What were my choices? Pay their ridiculous price or steal
one, or drive the car without a side light (which I could only do until
the next inspection period!) Not being willing to pay the price asked
does not change anything. There have been a lot of things (especially
on places like eBay) where I have passed up buying something I wanted
because I was unwilling to pay the price. Doesn't change the ownership
or the rights of the owner.

>
> In a similar fashion, what about a bug in operating system software
> which crashes the operating system, but which the manufacturer
> decides to abandon (and to not allow anyone to access the source
> code so the bug can be found and fixed)?

If you have a contract requiring they maintain it, then you have the
legal right and a method to force them to fix it. Already covered
by existing contract law. If you don't then you have only whatever
rights you received from your original license. What do you do if
you find a bug in Window98? MS is not going to fix it and you are
not going to get the source. And no court is going to rule in your
favor.

>
> I have other additional questions along this same line. I suppose
> that this line deals with ethics as opposed to profits, although it
> might be reasonable to realize that in the long run, ethical companies
> are more likely to attract mostly ethical customers which in the
> long run might actually produce higher profits.

I have never seen any unethical behavior on the part of any of the
owners of the PDP-11 OSes. You may not like the way they do/did
business but nothing in their behavior was unethical or illegal.
It is outsiders who are advocating illegal and unethical behavior.
There is nothing unethical about dropping support for a dead product
and nothing unethical about not giving it away. Don't confuse making
yourself happy with some form of ethics.

> However, if you
> wish to avoid the part ethics plays in running a company, I would
> agree to do so.

Just what ethical principle is violated by a company not bending itself
to your will?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <35a769853aba8f86...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,

Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> writes:
> "Jerome H. Fine" <ever...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> most of what you state is legally correct as well.
>
> I don't take issue with that on this particular quote you responded to but
> in fact most lawsuits have to prove actual damage and not just philosphical
> theft to have merit.

And now you are confusing criminal with civil law. Proof of monetary
damages may be necessary to win a payment in a civil suit, but stealing
software is a crminal matter and there does not need to be any proof
of monetary loss, only proof that the offence actually occured. Violation
of copyright law is a criminal matter as well as a potential civil
matter. And the two do not hinge on each other.

> I think most of what Bill has stated is based on his
> religio-philosophy and doesn't line up with the legal system.

Name one civilized country that does not have copyright law. The current
law in the US is actually based on European Law as we signed the Bern
Conventions. And they are rather clear in their expression of ownership
and the rights that ownership impart to the owner.

> I am not
> knocking religion or ethics or morality all of which are essential to a
> healthy society, but I believe Bill's points are based on his system of
> ethics and morality rather than practical matters.

Since when did the desires of private individuals over the rights of
IP owners become "practical matters"? Your desire to use someone else's
IP may seem rather practical to you, but the IP owner probably see it
in a rather different, in fact completely opposite, manner.

> The problem is the legal
> system isn't based on moral considerations but practical considerations such
> as damage and this is proper because you cannot assess damage or award
> fees etc. except based on actual loss or gain.

That's civil law, not criminal law. What "damages" are involved in my
driving 2 mph over some arbitrary speed limit? But you can bet I will
be cited, convicted and fined for doing so. Copyright violation is a
criminal as well as a civil matter and while a company may have a hard
time collecting damages (but a review of legal history would probably
prove otherwise) if one steals software and gets charged in criminal
court the value of the item is not relevant to getting a conviction.

> Unfortunately the law has
> slid away from these concepts towards politically correct punishment of
> perceived wrongdoing, which is more often than not more of a perversion of
> justice than the incident being judged itself (judicial activism etc.)

See my comments on rationalization. It is amazing how people can take
something as simple as taking some one else's property without their
permission and turn it into a wrongdoing on the part of the offended
person. You know, even without formal copyright law one would think
a man of average inteligence would relaize that he has no right to
something that was created by someone else. But this is becoming a
common conept throughout society today. I drive down the road and see
signs on people's property that say "No Dumping". I would have thought
that this was rather obvious. Don't put your garbage on someone else's
property. But, apparently modern society is rapidly loosing site of the
concept of private ownership.

>
>> In a similar fashion, what about a bug in operating system software
>> which crashes the operating system, but which the manufacturer
>> decides to abandon (and to not allow anyone to access the source
>> code so the bug can be found and fixed)?
>
> Source is not required to fix program bugs including OS bugs. It can
> certainly help but it is not necessary and in some cases not even
> desirable. I say this as someone who is paid to reverse engineer and modify
> operatings systems for which I don't have source.

I agree. But then, that wasn't the basis of the original argument and is
yet another example of trying to justify the act of stealing. And, one
must also realize that in many cases "reverse engineering" violates your
license agreement and would thus invalidate your contract. This is also
a violation of the law, but now we are talking contract law and this one
also does not hinge on monetary loss but only the act itself.

[Fritz Wuehler]

"Jerome H. Fine" <ever...@nospam.com> wrote:

> In a similar fashion, what about a bug in operating system software
> which crashes the operating system, but which the manufacturer
> decides to abandon (and to not allow anyone to access the source
> code so the bug can be found and fixed)?

This is more questionable than anything written in the thread so far.
Instead of speaking to Bill's idea of theoretical/philosphical concepts
of ownership or my notions about tangible property, what constitutes
ownership and what is or is not damage, this seems to be moral relativism. I
don't think how much somebody is inconvenienced by not being able to help
himself to somebody else's property is not relevant to whether or not that
is permissible or not.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:

(snip)

> Source is not required to fix program bugs including OS bugs. It can
> certainly help but it is not necessary and in some cases not even
> desirable. I say this as someone who is paid to reverse engineer
> and modify operatings systems for which I don't have source.

I once found a bug in part of the HP-UX system, where a program
would, on start, open /dev/console. If it did this before getty,
then it wasn't possible to log in on the console. It wasn't hard
to modify to /dev/null instead.

I then called up HP to complain about it, as we had a maintenance
contract on that system. I also told them about my fix.
The person on the phone decided that mine was a fine solution,
and that there was no need for them to fix it!

-- glen

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>
>I have never seen any unethical behavior on the part of any of the
>owners of the PDP-11 OSes. You may not like the way they do/did
>business but nothing in their behavior was unethical or illegal.
>It is outsiders who are advocating illegal and unethical behavior.
>There is nothing unethical about dropping support for a dead product
>and nothing unethical about not giving it away. Don't confuse making
>yourself happy with some form of ethics.

They have a work of art, a beautiful piece of software, which they are
not taking care of and preserving as is appropriate to a work of art.

If someone bought the Mona Lisa and then kept it in their shed in the
backyard, there would be a great cry among the public, because although
you may own the work and that gives you the right to do what you want with
it, the work has become a part of the culture and people believe it should
be preserved.

That is where the case of unethical behaviour comes in. If HP wishes to
keep the software secret and not provide licenses any more, that's one
thing. But keeping it secret, not providing licenses AND not keeping the
source code carefully available for future generations is a very different
thing. I think that if people had some proof that HP was being a good
custodian that a lot of these accusations would go away.

My suspicion, though, having seen the New Hewlett Packard, is that they
probably aren't being good custodians. This is a tragedy, since what made
the old HP great was in part their support for older products. Hell, I can
still get manuals for Boonton Radio products from Agilent, and Agilent bought
them out in the sixties.

>> However, if you
>> wish to avoid the part ethics plays in running a company, I would
>> agree to do so.
>
>Just what ethical principle is violated by a company not bending itself
>to your will?

It's not the distribution, it's the preservation that brings up the questions
of ethics.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>I once found a bug in part of the HP-UX system, where a program
>would, on start, open /dev/console. If it did this before getty,
>then it wasn't possible to log in on the console. It wasn't hard
>to modify to /dev/null instead.
>
>I then called up HP to complain about it, as we had a maintenance
>contract on that system. I also told them about my fix.
>The person on the phone decided that mine was a fine solution,
>and that there was no need for them to fix it!

I found a bug in the HP150 hardware... and I had a fix for it... but
called HP and they wanted money to take a bug report since we didn't
have a maintenance contract. So.... I thanked them anyway and hung up.

[Nomen Nescio]

bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> In article <2b1cc3aaa9f1d804...@dizum.com>,
> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> writes:
> > bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1gdad75rtbj1or80s...@4ax.com>,
> >> Robert Adamson <rwadamson<at>hotmail<dot>com> writes:
> >> > On 29 Nov 2011 13:56:17 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
> >> >>other people's IP?
> >
> > I admire your principles and probably share quite a few. I think where most
> > people are beginning to differ is when it comes to unused software and
> > doc.
>
> Why does "unused" have anything to do with it? I have stuff in boxes
> in my attic that have been "unused" since I packed them for the trip
> back from germany in 1979. Are they any less mine?

Again, again, and again: there is a difference between tangible and
intangible and this is it: if I take what tangible goods belong to you, you
no longer have them. If I copy something you have then nothing happened to
you, so much so that you don't even know it happened. If I did not take away
from you what you own or reduce the value of what you own then I haven't
damaged you.

>
> > Those are both certainly worth money
>
> Value or percieved value are also irrelevant.

Not so, or the concept of ownership is also irrelevant. Ownership requires
value.

>
> > and belong to the people who own
> > them,
>
> The only thing that matters and you seem to accept that ownership exists.
>
> > but unlike tangible property
>
> How is software not "tangible". It physically exists, just like all other
> property.

Things like music, software, and doc or I suppose anything that can be
digitized means it has a different type of existence that is really not
tangible. Please hit yourself over a head with a piece of software to
understand what I am saying. If that doesn't work, slap yourself with a
Mozart symphony. If you need still more proof then knock yourself out with a
novel.

All of those things are intangibles. They can be made somewhat tangible by
printing them or burning them onto a disc but I'm not taking your copy of
the book away or taking your CD if I make a copy. Media is not the essence
of the item.

>
> > making copies of them doesn't do any harm
> > to the originals or affect them in any way.
>
> Why is that relevant? It is still someone else's property.

Property has no meaning unless value and damage also have meaning. Otherwise
how do you define property?

>
> > Obviously this is a grey area
>
> How is it "grey"? It belongs to someone else. you do not have their
> permission to use it. Seems rather black and white to me. The whole
> concept of "grey areas" and "abandonware" is nothing more than people
> rationalizing the theft of someone else's property. Just like people
> who cheat on their taxes because they feel the taxes are unfair anyway
> or commit innsurance fraud because it doesn't hurt anyone, just the
> innsurance company.

Property has to have value, and stealing is defined not by taking something
that doesn't belong to you, but taking an item away from somebody or
reducing the value of what somebody has.

>
> > and if something is still marketed or held and sold occasionally there is an
> > issue of theft.
>
> Theft is theft. The marketability or saleability of an item has no bearing
> on the matter. Must be a lot Thomists in the computer hobbyist field.
>
> > But when something is abandoned, however you define what
> > that means,
>
> Hobbyists seem to have very loose definitions of this. I have known
> people, here, who have had no qualms about using the PDP-11 OSes without
> license or permission even when they were still being actively maintained
> and sold.

I already covered that in a previous post. If something is being sold then
copying without permission is clearly theft, because it is possible loss of
sale.

>
> > There is using that affects
> > the owner's tangible property, I think everyone would agree that's
> > wrong. Using any tangible item inevitably results in wear and tear and there
> > is also the risk of unintentional damage beyond wear and tear.
>
> So, you have come up with personal definitions for "using", "tangible"
> and "wrong". If I am allowed to redefine the terms, anything becomes
> possible. If I go into a local bank and take $100,000 at the point of
> a gun is it a loan if I say it is?

You continue to claim tangible goods (MG, box of stuff in your attic, cash)
are the same as intangible things like software and doc. If you deprive
anybody of something they own you have stolen it. If you make a copy of it
you haven't damaged them, therefore there is no theft involved.

>
> > Making copies of stuff
> > lying around given they were not stolen in the first place
>
> But the copy is stolen. I have dozens of Microsoft OS and Product disks
> "lying around" my office at the University. If someone makes a copy isn't
> the software being stolen?

By your definition of theft and property as I understand it, you would say
making a copy of something is stealing. By my definition, property has to
have value and stealing has to damage the person who has something of value
to be called theft. If I light my cigarette from yours I haven't stolen
anything because you still have your lit cigarette. If I copy your CD or
your book or your music or your software I haven't damaged you. To me that
cannot be called theft.

>
> > or copying from
> > existing licensed but old and unsupported or non-marketed copies
>
> What does age have to do with it?

"old and unsupported" = no value = no damage to "owner" when copied

> What does level of support have to do with it?

see above, it was a phrase, not two isolated words ("and")

> What does level of marketing have to do with it?

If it's not being sold then copying it does no harm because I have not
deprived the "owner" of a sale.

>
> > is like
> > taking a flame from a candle. What harm is done by that? The candle hasn't
> > been affected at all.
>
> Meaningless example. You have not taken a copy of the flame.

It's a very poignant example. You keep arguing from a point of real property
but the whole discussion centers on intangibles. Just as the flame is not
reduced by lighting another candle from it, software, doc, music etc. are
not reduced by copying them, given they are not still being sold.

> What harm is done? One might argue that everytime one performs an immoral
> act it diminishes them as a person. Is there harm in that? I guess if you
> are amoral, none. But I would hope that most people choose to be something
> beyond amoral.

The idea behind property rights is not to protect some abstract notion of
property. It is to protect against loss. If I don't cause you a loss I
haven't stolen from you. I'm not a philospher so I'm not interested in your
line of argument. From a practical standpoint the issue is not to harm
another person. Stealing reduces value and harms. That is wrong. Copying may
or may not harm. I have said if you copy something that is being sold and
that damages the seller then it is theft and it's wrong. If I copy something
that is not being sold and I haven't damaged anyone then it isn't theft and
it isn't wrong.

> >
> >> No one has a "right" to another's property. I need a kidney. Can I take
> >> yours against your will? How about a lung? Your heart?
> >
> > We had the MG analogy and this argument is exactly the same thing. It isn't
> > a good analogy because it's comparing something tangible
>
> There's that word again. let's look at what the dictionary says:
> tan-gi-ble [tan-juh-buhl]
> 1. real or actual, rather than imaginary or
> visionary: ie. the tangible benefits of sunshine.
> 2. capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.
>
> Seems to me that software meets these two so I guess it is tangible
> >afterall.

The dictionary is nice but it doesn't change reality.

>
> > there is only one
> > of with software and doc that can be duplicated endlessly without affecting
> > the original at all.
>
> I still don't see the relevance of this. I can "duplicate" a book (in
> particular an eBook) "endlessly without affecting the original at all".
> Does that make copying it not stealing it?

Yes, it is not stealing, provided it meets the criteria I posted numerous
times already such as it is no longer being sold, etc.

>
> > The only issue is if those copies cause someone a loss
> > of business
>
> So it is only stealing if it costs someone money? Care to point out that
> definition of stealing in any dictionary?

Stealing is based on the concept of tangible items having value. If
something has no value then stealing is a non-sequitur. Theft means
depriving someone of something they own, or reducing the value of something
they own. If something has no value it cannot be theft. If a copy doesn't
affect the original it is not theft, as long as it does not result in a loss
of sale.

>
> > or if it causes something they own that has real (not book)
> > value to depreciate,
>
> And why do you get to decide what has value and what that value is when
> dealing with someone else's property?

It's a pretty easy test. If someone takes something from someone else and
that reduces the value of what the person originally had or removes some
item belong to that person from his posession, then it is stealing. If it
doesn't affect that value or deprive him of his posession it is not.

>
> > then it is wrong.
>
> Rationalization is so easy.

Putting away dictionaries and popular definitions and instead looking at
legal arguments from a standpoint of value and damage is a lot harder.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <7cb538721ee2b15d...@dizum.com>,

Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> writes:
> bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
>> In article <2b1cc3aaa9f1d804...@dizum.com>,
>> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> writes:
>> > bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <1gdad75rtbj1or80s...@4ax.com>,
>> >> Robert Adamson <rwadamson<at>hotmail<dot>com> writes:
>> >> > On 29 Nov 2011 13:56:17 GMT, bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Same thing. Why do people here seem so intent on demanding rights to
>> >> >>other people's IP?
>> >
>> > I admire your principles and probably share quite a few. I think where most
>> > people are beginning to differ is when it comes to unused software and
>> > doc.
>>
>> Why does "unused" have anything to do with it? I have stuff in boxes
>> in my attic that have been "unused" since I packed them for the trip
>> back from germany in 1979. Are they any less mine?
>
> Again, again, and again: there is a difference between tangible and
> intangible and this is it: if I take what tangible goods belong to you, you
> no longer have them. If I copy something you have then nothing happened to
> you, so much so that you don't even know it happened. If I did not take away
> from you what you own or reduce the value of what you own then I haven't
> damaged you.

That is a matter of perception. You see no value in someone else's
property. How can you say they don't see value in it? And if you
take a copy of something I value how can you say you have not
diminshed that value? You repeatedly say there is no value. Then
why do you want it? You don't see people's willingness to steal
something that belongs to someone else as a real sign there is in
fact value involved?

>
>>
>> > Those are both certainly worth money
>>
>> Value or percieved value are also irrelevant.
>
> Not so, or the concept of ownership is also irrelevant. Ownership requires
> value.

Ownership has nothing to do with the kind of value you are trying to apply.
I have pictures that are very valuable to me. I am sure that you would look
at them and see no value at all. But I own them, just the same. What's
more, if you took them from me you would do me great harm. It is the
owner who places the value, not the thief.

>
>>
>> > and belong to the people who own
>> > them,
>>
>> The only thing that matters and you seem to accept that ownership exists.
>>
>> > but unlike tangible property
>>
>> How is software not "tangible". It physically exists, just like all other
>> property.
>
> Things like music, software, and doc or I suppose anything that can be
> digitized means it has a different type of existence that is really not
> tangible.

I take it you missed the dictionary definitions I posted both of which
easily apply to music, software and doc (what ever that is?) and that
includes digitized versions. Or do you see no value in eBooks and feel
you would be within your rights to take them without paying?

> Please hit yourself over a head with a piece of software to
> understand what I am saying. If that doesn't work, slap yourself with a
> Mozart symphony. If you need still more proof then knock yourself out with a
> novel.

Your definition of tangible, not the worlds.

Let's cut this down a bit. I am deleting everything up to the your
comments on the dictionary definition of tangible.

>>
>> There's that word again. let's look at what the dictionary says:
>> tan-gi-ble [tan-juh-buhl]
>> 1. real or actual, rather than imaginary or
>> visionary: ie. the tangible benefits of sunshine.
>> 2. capable of being assigned a value in monetary terms.
>>
>> Seems to me that software meets these two so I guess it is tangible
>> >afterall.
>
> The dictionary is nice but it doesn't change reality.

And there is the epitome if rationalization. If we don't agree we just
redefine the words and they can mean whatever we want.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means
just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -- Lewis Carrol

Looks like we are thru the looking glass once again....

And, with this I drop out. One can not debate when the surface on
which they are standing is constantly changing.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <jb84m1$op9$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:
>>
>>I have never seen any unethical behavior on the part of any of the
>>owners of the PDP-11 OSes. You may not like the way they do/did
>>business but nothing in their behavior was unethical or illegal.
>>It is outsiders who are advocating illegal and unethical behavior.
>>There is nothing unethical about dropping support for a dead product
>>and nothing unethical about not giving it away. Don't confuse making
>>yourself happy with some form of ethics.
>
> They have a work of art, a beautiful piece of software, which they are
> not taking care of and preserving as is appropriate to a work of art.

I know people who thing antique cars are works of art. I also know
people who have antique cars rusting away in their fields. Does the
first party have the right to take the property ofthe second party?

>
> If someone bought the Mona Lisa and then kept it in their shed in the
> backyard, there would be a great cry among the public, because although
> you may own the work and that gives you the right to do what you want with
> it, the work has become a part of the culture and people believe it should
> be preserved.

Now there is a real stretch. Care to try that defense in a court of law?
Want to bet that the judge has ever heard of a PDP-11 or RT-11 or RSTS, etc?
Care to bet anyone would agree that they are "a part of the culture"?

Oh, and by the way, there is evidence that The Mona Lisa is actually
painted over and earlier work of DaVinci. Did he not have the right
to destroy the first work in order to create the second? Should Society
have stopped him?

>
> That is where the case of unethical behaviour comes in. If HP wishes to
> keep the software secret and not provide licenses any more, that's one
> thing. But keeping it secret, not providing licenses AND not keeping the
> source code carefully available for future generations is a very different
> thing. I think that if people had some proof that HP was being a good
> custodian that a lot of these accusations would go away.

Your definition of a good custodian. HP's responsibility is to their
stock holders, not you. If the stock holders don't see any value in
maintaining the existence of the product, its their call, not society's
amd not yours.

>
> My suspicion, though, having seen the New Hewlett Packard, is that they
> probably aren't being good custodians. This is a tragedy, since what made
> the old HP great was in part their support for older products. Hell, I can
> still get manuals for Boonton Radio products from Agilent, and Agilent bought
> them out in the sixties.
>
>>> However, if you
>>> wish to avoid the part ethics plays in running a company, I would
>>> agree to do so.
>>
>>Just what ethical principle is violated by a company not bending itself
>>to your will?
>
> It's not the distribution, it's the preservation that brings up the questions
> of ethics.

Do you have all of the papers you wrote for school from first grade thru
the highest college level you attained. What, you didn't keep them? Why
did you not preserve them? I might see them as being really valuable?

Do we really need to go on with this?

[John Wallace]

On Dec 1, 5:16 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <jb84m1$op...@panix2.panix.com>,
>         klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:

> billg...@cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

"Do we really need to go on with this?"

No.

You are trying to impose your personal morals on a scenario which in
reality is regulated by law. The law generally draws an understandable
distinction between the long-understood criminal offence of theft, and
the relatively recently introduced (in some jurisdictions) criminal
offence of copyright abuse (for certain types of copyright material).

Theft and copyright abuse do not match neatly, even lawyers
acknowledge that, but you will not acknowledge that. In the absence of
such an acknowledgement, what is the point in further discussion?

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon <bill...@cs.uofs.edu> wrote:

>>I have never seen any unethical behavior on the part of any of the
>>owners of the PDP-11 OSes.

> They have a work of art, a beautiful piece of software, which they are
> not taking care of and preserving as is appropriate to a work of art.

> If someone bought the Mona Lisa and then kept it in their shed in the
> backyard, there would be a great cry among the public, because although
> you may own the work and that gives you the right to do what you want with
> it, the work has become a part of the culture and people believe it should
> be preserved.

We have the National Register of Historic Places:

http://www.nps.gov/nr/

I don't know if there is anything similar for other art forms.

-- glen

[Nomen Nescio]

bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> In article <35a769853aba8f86...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> writes:
> > "Jerome H. Fine" <ever...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >> most of what you state is legally correct as well.
> >
> > I don't take issue with that on this particular quote you responded to but
> > in fact most lawsuits have to prove actual damage and not just philosphical
> > theft to have merit.
>
> And now you are confusing criminal with civil law.

And now you are confusing me with the debater who gives a damn.

What is or is not criminal is based on politics. I thought our discussion
was based on what is right or wrong. You can't swing a dead cat anywhere in
America without breaking a few hundred laws. If you are going to use the
perversion they are calling the criminal statutes as a basis for discussion
then the discussion is over. It's over anyway, since there doesn't seem to
be anything in your posts except unsubstantiated veiled accusations of
immorality.

> See my comments on rationalization. It is amazing how people can take
> something as simple as taking some one else's property without their
> permission and turn it into a wrongdoing on the part of the offended
> person. You know, even without formal copyright law one would think
> a man of average inteligence would relaize that he has no right to
> something that was created by someone else. But this is becoming a
> common conept throughout society today. I drive down the road and see
> signs on people's property that say "No Dumping". I would have thought
> that this was rather obvious. Don't put your garbage on someone else's
> property. But, apparently modern society is rapidly loosing site of the
> concept of private ownership.

I don't agree with your point of view nor with your conclusion, neither
which you have been able to support in quite a few posts. Your only basis
seems to be the status quo of what laws exist, and that is your measure of
what is right or wrong. I don't really care about what laws exist, because
nobody could comply with them all even if he tried as hard as he could, and
nobody can refrain from violating them in a normal day. It's out of control.

I say your notion of ownership is based on a concocted ad-hoc notion of
what ownership means, not a realistic notion nor one that has any historical
basis. The whole point of law is to protect against harm. Regardless of what
laws were enacted, and I think we can all agree 99.9% of them are
immoral/unethical/illegal etc. the fact remains, unless you take away from a
person what is his, or reduce the value of what he owns, you have not stolen
from him nor damaged him. I'll say more, laws that go beyond protecting
against actual harm are immoral and probably unconstitutional.

> I agree. But then, that wasn't the basis of the original argument and is
> yet another example of trying to justify the act of stealing.

I wasn't speaking to you.

> And, one must also realize that in many cases "reverse engineering"
> violates your license agreement and would thus invalidate your contract.
> This is also a violation of the law, but now we are talking contract law
> and this one also does not hinge on monetary loss but only the act itself.

I guess you never worked for a major engineering company. Everybody does
it. See, the law is meant to be broken.

There's a Chinese parable that reminds me of your point of view.

There was a beggar who used to sit in front of a bakery each day to smell
the bread as it baked since he couldn't afford to buy the bread. The baker
was angry at this beggar and chased him away for many days until he finally
lost his patience and brought the beggar to court. The judges thought about
it awhile, and when they were done thinking about it enough they called the
beggar to stand before the baker. They handed the beggar three small coins
and told him to shake them together in one hand. The sound of the jingling
coins was the payment for the crime of "stealing" the aroma of the bread
baking. Of course in China today the man would be shot and his family would
have to pay the firing squad for the ammunition. I say the original
judgement was correct but I guess you would opt for the latter.

That story is a very good analogy for your dogmatic obesance to the legal
status quo and abstractions of property based on giving governments control
over people, as opposed to the view of the judges in that story who
understood that unless someone is deprived of his property, or of the value
of something he owns, he hasn't been damaged and no legal remedy is
required.

[Nomen Nescio]

Thanks for an interesting post!

[Charles Richmond]

"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:5c9a8e8dcef2f8d6...@dizum.com...

> bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <35a769853aba8f86...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
>> Fritz Wuehler <fr...@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
>> writes:
>> > "Jerome H. Fine" <ever...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> most of what you state is legally correct as well.
>> >
>> > I don't take issue with that on this particular quote you responded to
>> > but
>> > in fact most lawsuits have to prove actual damage and not just
>> > philosphical
>> > theft to have merit.
>>
>> And now you are confusing criminal with civil law.
>
> And now you are confusing me with the debater who gives a damn.
>
> What is or is not criminal is based on politics. I thought our discussion
> was based on what is right or wrong. You can't swing a dead cat anywhere
> in
> America without breaking a few hundred laws. If you are going to use the
> perversion they are calling the criminal statutes as a basis for
> discussion
> then the discussion is over. It's over anyway, since there doesn't seem to
> be anything in your posts except unsubstantiated veiled accusations of
> immorality.
>

ISTM that copyright infringement and patent infringement *used* to be civil
matters. To recover your losses, you had to *sue*. Now laws have gotten
more draconian. And also ISTM that the U.S. copyright law is *much* more
pervasive than the laws in Europe. A copyright can be maintained on a work
for 70 years after the death of all the authors.

It is evident that the government decides "who gets what of value" in the
country. That's what the government has always done in the U.S. There is a
lot of high-flying rhetoric about freedom and property rights... but the
rights a person has are only what the government allows that person to have.
Back in the days of encrypted TV signals, it was a felony in some states to
possess the *schematic* for a decrypting box, even if *you* designed the
decrypting schematic yourself.

Patent and copyright are what the government "allows" a person to have... to
protect the works produced by his mind. But the government *has* decreed
limits in the *protection*. That's why there is a time limit on copyrights
(albeit a *long* time) and the concept of "fair use" that allows some use of
part of a work. I know Mr. Gunshannon does *not* like this, and perhaps he
should work to get things changed. But for now, this is how the law and the
government work. We live in a society of people and even unpopular laws
should be obeyed... unless you violate them as a matter of conscious and are
willing to pay the price of fines and maybe even prison.

As to what is moral, each person must decide that for him or her self. There
are a whole lot of things that are *legal*... that I consider immoral and
that I would *not* engage in myself.

[Fiona Shoppa]

On Nov 24, 9:48 am, Wolfgang <oe5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder if any copies of FMS-11 survived. Does anyone of you have this in his/hers archive? It'd be a nice addition to my system.

I'm not so quick on the draw to Usenet questions any more.

ftp://ftp.trailing-edge.com/pub/rsxdists/fmsrsx_v2_1.zip

[Johnny Billquist]

Hey! Nice. Lots of stuff in there...

Johnny

[Rich Alderson]

Johnny Billquist <b...@softjar.se> writes:

> On 2011-11-28 02.46, Al Kossow wrote:
>> On 11/27/11 10:32 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>> HP still have a strangle hold on everything

>> They have bigger problems than dealing with a few hobbyists.
>> I was hoping to get the a release for all PDP's similar to the what CHM
>> has for HP-1000 and Apollo, but they really aren't interested in spending
>> any cycles on dead acquired products right now.

> Yeah. I suspected as much. Trying to deal with HP to get PDP-11 software
> released is currently not easy to do. :-(

> And of course, the same goes for all other PDP models. The only thing I
> think has a really different status is TOPS-20 (and perhaps Tops-10),
> which XKL pried from DECs hands in the 90s (or was it already in the
> late 80s?), along with the limited licenses Bob Supnik pulled out.

1995. XKL was not founded until December 1990, and 3 senior executives at
Digital who tried to get it licensed to us disappeared from Digital before we
found someone who got it done without getting tossed out on his ear. (I know
he survived the Compaq acquisition, but haven't heard from him since the
Borg^W^WHP came into the picture.)

--
Rich Alderson ne...@alderson.users.panix.com
the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/
to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page...

[Al Kossow]

On 12/10/11 7:04 AM, Rich Alderson wrote:
> (I know
> he survived the Compaq acquisition, but haven't heard from him since the
> Borg^W^WHP came into the picture.)
>

If was from DEC legal, I think he retired a year or two ago. We were trying
to get something planned for post-EOL VAX, but that fizzled.

[Rich Alderson]

No, he was from, of all things, the educational group. Last time I spoke to
him (long before parting ways with XKL), he had moved to Houston.