Semi ethical question
Anthony Marchini
I have a device that was designed by a board fab place. They
used the 80196 and ,I am guessing, the PL/M compiler that
came with the development board they are using.
The code needs minor maintenance from time to time ( along
with other projects) and so I was brought in to do in house
progamming and design for my company ( they normally
contracted out).
They have a fairly good program that runs well and so I don't
really feel I should re-write it. The program that runs the device
was written in PL/M. Though not used to the syntax PL/M is
a fairly simple langauge that I should be able to change when
needed. The problem is that when I inquired to Intel on the existance
of the PL/M compiler I was told that it was "end of lifed" and that
other vendors have development software for the 80196. My search
proved that no one makes a PL/M compiler for the 80196.
The people who designed the original program obviously have a
totally valueless product. Can they just give me a copy??
(I don't have the time to re write the thing , otherwise I would)
(anyone from intel who has a copy and the permission to send
it to me feel free)
--
Anthony Marchini (to...@epix.net)
Electronic Design Engineer
American Locker Security Systems
www.americanlocker.com
David Mosley
When one possesses an object that is desired by another, the implication
is that the object has value (at least to the one desiring the object).
This result does not prevent the holder from giving freely the object to
anyone desiring it, but it does suggest that taking the object without
permission would be unethical.
If Intel was to provide you with a copy of the compiler, they would not
be unethical in requiring you to release them from any maintenance or
support of the product and could well charge a small fee for handling
the transaction (although, imposing a fee would certainly be bad in
terms of customer realtions).
Just my little bit o' input.
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% David Mosley, Sr. Electronics Engineer | The views I express %
% Power Paragon, Inc. | do not necessarily re- %
% http://www.powerparagon.com | flect those of Power %
% mailto:ppidi...@powerparagon.com | Paragon, Inc. %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mike Page
Anthony Marchini <to...@epix.net> wrote in article
<01bc33cc$6aff6a40$3f5b...@amarchini.penn.com>...
Given that you don't need the group's consensus to copy something you
want, I assume this is not a specific question but a general one, which
is : is it OK to copy something that the copyright holder has no plans
to make any money out of ?
This is akin to freeware, where you do not hold the copyright, and
cannot make money out of redistribution, but are free to use the single
item for personal or commercial use. I would say that was in the spirit
of the law, if not in the letter.
It would probably cost them too much in admin and duplication to send
you a free copy anyway. Go ahead and get your own.
Regards,
Mike.
Jonathan Kirwan
On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 23:05:47 GMT, "Mike Page" <mike...@iee.org>
wrote:
>Anthony Marchini <to...@epix.net> wrote in article
><01bc33cc$6aff6a40$3f5b...@amarchini.penn.com>...
>> it to me feel free)
>
>want, I assume this is not a specific question but a general one, which
>is : is it OK to copy something that the copyright holder has no plans
>to make any money out of ?
>
>This is akin to freeware, where you do not hold the copyright, and
>cannot make money out of redistribution, but are free to use the single
>item for personal or commercial use. I would say that was in the spirit
>of the law, if not in the letter.
>
>It would probably cost them too much in admin and duplication to send
>you a free copy anyway. Go ahead and get your own.
This "tickled" me. I was involved, recently, in a situation where
we wanted to use Microsoft's QuickBASIC, version 4.5, for the
project. Actually, we wanted 5 copies for the project, since the
users may want to make "special modifications" on their own.
It had to be version 4.5, since that's what one of the engineers
had at home and was familiar with (he did NOT like the later
versions (7.0, 7.1, and Visual BASIC for DOS 1.0).
But when we called Microsoft, they said it wasn't being
distributed and they had no further plans for the product. They
wouldn't sell it to us.
The decision was made to use our existing copy of 4.5 and make all
changes with it. I suppose we _could_ have purchased the later
versions (Microsoft gets their price) and then simply copied 4.5
for our own use. (Finding someone in Microsoft, willing to put
their name to this kind of a plan, was impossible. We were
unwilling, lacking that written permission, to do anything else in
this circumstance.)
But what about cases where the company is "dead" with "who knows"
owning whatever residual rights may exist and the product is no
longer available but is valuable for some arcane or legacy
purpose? Is there a moral burden in copying such software freely?
I guess we answer that question each time we encounter it, in our
own ways.
Jon
Chris Wright
In article <3330eca8...@news.alt.net>, Peter <z...@dserve.com>
writes
>
>Now things are coming full circle, with MS rumoured to be buying up
>the rights to various old 1970s and 1980s operating systems, probably
>including CP/M :)
>
Really? First I've heard of this. Why do they want
to do this? I can't imagine that they want to
promote any of them - is it a scheme to ensure
that *every* OS in the world belongs to MS? :)
--
Chris Wright
Rolt Manufacturing Ltd
ki...@cityscape.co.uk
Chris Burian
In article <3330827f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>This "tickled" me. I was involved, recently, in a situation where
>we wanted to use Microsoft's QuickBASIC, version 4.5, for the
>project. Actually, we wanted 5 copies for the project, since the
>users may want to make "special modifications" on their own.
>
>It had to be version 4.5, since that's what one of the engineers
>had at home and was familiar with (he did NOT like the later
>versions (7.0, 7.1, and Visual BASIC for DOS 1.0).
This is odd. I have Basic Pro 7.0 and QuickBasic 4.5, and I can't tell
the difference when going from one to the other. Just that added features
of 7.0 are missing in QB 4.5.
>But when we called Microsoft, they said it wasn't being
>distributed and they had no further plans for the product. They
>wouldn't sell it to us.
It's still available in academic version. For details, see
http://www.microsoft.com/education/products/prod41.htm
Other, "obsolete" MS software, such as MASM 6.11 is also available
only academically. (Or with a subscription to their developer's stuff.)
www.diskovery.com, among many other vendors sell QB. Keep in mind
that it's no more legal to use academic software for commercial
purposes than to use pirated copies, but at least you'd have MS
install disks, instead of evil pirate copies. Perhaps you could get
your engineer's legal home copy, and he could take the educational one
home, for personal, educational use.
To order, somebody will have to dig up a college (or high school) ID.
>But what about cases where the company is "dead" with "who knows"
>owning whatever residual rights may exist and the product is no
>longer available but is valuable for some arcane or legacy
>purpose? Is there a moral burden in copying such software freely?
This is a serious problem for older systems. Lots of CP/M stuff is
sold by nobody, yet copyright is still retained by various lawyers,
holding companies, and software companies that bought out failed
businesses years ago. It sucks. Unfortunately, the secondary market
for old software is very small and disorganized. I had QC2 I copied
from somebody, but couldn't buy anywhere. Then luckily, I bought a
whole MS C 5.1 package from a guy for $10 plus shipping, and now have
legal QC, MS C, and MASM which I use for development '286 host to '188
target. I didn't feel so guilty using stolen QC at home back then, seeing
as I had bought VC++, but I could never have used it for work. Being
legal feels so much better, but it would be awful if I hadn't found the
opportunity to buy it.
<sigh> If only this old stuff was stockpiled somewhere, waiting to
be bought by needful users.
Good luck.
Chris
Rob McDonald
>Anthony Marchini <to...@epix.net> wrote:
> I have a device that was designed by a board fab place. They
> used the 80196 and ,I am guessing, the PL/M compiler that
> came with the development board they are using.
> needed. The problem is that when I inquired to Intel on the existance
> of the PL/M compiler I was told that it was "end of lifed" and that
> other vendors have development software for the 80196.
I was faced with something similar a few years back. I had to modify an RTOS
for which my employer had bought the source some years earlier. It was
developed with a compiler version no longer supported. Itried using the
current compiler, but it had significant incompatibilities which would
require a lot of work to overcome. Some polite inquiries to tech support
resulted in a helpful tech mailing me (free of charge!) an unsupported copy
of the old compiler. Explain your situation, ask nicely, maybe you'll get
lucky too :-).
Rob McDonald
Mike Page
> <sigh> If only this old stuff was stockpiled somewhere, waiting to
> be bought by needful users.
But the problem there is supply and demand. If there really is a
demand, you have a saleable product, and someone is going to make sure
they _sell_ it to you. It's the same with "old" music. This used to be
sold in compilation CDs at half price. Now it's big business. So it's
catch-22.
Regards,
Mike.
Dennis Kegley
It would not surprise me that Microsoft is blocking the use of any other
simple OS in home security/entertainment networking. This is one of the
next big markets, and if there's one thing Gate's is good at, it's being
an animal in the market. I don't think the Japanese government/industry
consortiums have a THING on him!
*******************************************************************************
To improve the golden moment of opportunity, and catch the good that is
within our reach, is the great aret of life.
Dennis Kegley
*******************************************************************************
Bradley Yearwood
In article <5gsepk$5...@informer1.cis.McMaster.CA>,
I work in an industry (telecom equipment) where expected support lifecycles
are long (maybe 15 years) by comparison with typical development tool
company lifetimes.
My preferred strategy is to compile with a GNU cross-compiler, locally built
from source code. I put archives of this on DLT tape and on CD-R, including
offsite backups. I also keep copies of a workable host OS (and bootstrap
compiler if necessary - SunOS 4.1.x includes it) on CD offsite, along with
some documentation of the backup scheme.
If you don't have compilable source code all the way back to the bare metal,
you don't have a supportable product. Extend this argument to the host OS
as well as the tools, and the source code aspect of "free" software is even
more compelling.
If you were working in 1982, think about the tools that you were using. To
maintain an embedded product over 15 years, you might have to change processor
architectures 3-4 times to assure availability. Yesterday's dreamware is
tomorrow's landfill. Yesterday's vendor is either vanished, or may become
tomorrow's competitor.
There is NO replacement for source code. Accept nothing less.
Brad Yearwood b...@crl.com
Cotati, CA
Jonathan Kirwan
On 20 Mar 1997 15:39:40 GMT, cbu...@ll.mit.edu (Chris Burian)
wrote:
>In article <3330827f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>It had to be version 4.5, since that's what one of the engineers
>>had at home and was familiar with (he did NOT like the later
>>versions (7.0, 7.1, and Visual BASIC for DOS 1.0).
>
>This is odd. I have Basic Pro 7.0 and QuickBasic 4.5, and I can't tell
>the difference when going from one to the other. Just that added features
>of 7.0 are missing in QB 4.5.
I liked to use OPTION EXPLICIT, for example. Also something like:
DECLARE FUNCTION AAA (A AS INTEGER) AS INTEGER
instead of:
DECLARE FUNCTION AAA% (A AS INTEGER)
QB 4.5 won't take the former one. 7.0 will. There are other
differences, including library features. All in all, they didn't
want me using anything that couldn't be compiled on 4.5. Just
preference.
>>But when we called Microsoft, they said it wasn't being
>>distributed and they had no further plans for the product. They
>>wouldn't sell it to us.
>
>It's still available in academic version. For details, see
>http://www.microsoft.com/education/products/prod41.htm
>Other, "obsolete" MS software, such as MASM 6.11 is also available
>only academically. (Or with a subscription to their developer's stuff.)
Wouldn't make the situation any better. 6 or one, half dozen of
the other.
>>But what about cases where the company is "dead" with "who knows"
>>owning whatever residual rights may exist and the product is no
>>longer available but is valuable for some arcane or legacy
>>purpose? Is there a moral burden in copying such software freely?
>
>This is a serious problem for older systems. Lots of CP/M stuff is
>sold by nobody, yet copyright is still retained by various lawyers,
>holding companies, and software companies that bought out failed
>businesses years ago. It sucks. Unfortunately, the secondary market
>for old software is very small and disorganized. I had QC2 I copied
>from somebody, but couldn't buy anywhere. Then luckily, I bought a
>whole MS C 5.1 package from a guy for $10 plus shipping, and now have
>legal QC, MS C, and MASM which I use for development '286 host to '188
>target. I didn't feel so guilty using stolen QC at home back then, seeing
>as I had bought VC++, but I could never have used it for work. Being
>legal feels so much better, but it would be awful if I hadn't found the
>opportunity to buy it.
I have a purchased copy of LearnC and QuickC 2.0. QC2 is handy,
at times. I also have Zortek, Watcom, Microsoft, Metaware,
Borland, and just about every other C/C++ compiler in the PC
market. Use them, too. Pain in my pocketbook, but my clients
always "require" some compiler different than the last one I used.
Jon
Niall Murphy
On 18 Mar 1997 18:45:38 GMT, "Anthony Marchini" <to...@epix.net>
wrote:
>I have a device that was designed by a board fab place. They
>used the 80196 and ,I am guessing, the PL/M compiler that
>came with the development board they are using.
>The code needs minor maintenance from time to time ( along
>with other projects) and so I was brought in to do in house
>progamming and design for my company ( they normally
>contracted out).
>They have a fairly good program that runs well and so I don't
>really feel I should re-write it. The program that runs the device
>was written in PL/M. Though not used to the syntax PL/M is
>a fairly simple langauge that I should be able to change when
>needed. The problem is that when I inquired to Intel on the existance
>of the PL/M compiler I was told that it was "end of lifed" and that
>other vendors have development software for the 80196. My search
>proved that no one makes a PL/M compiler for the 80196.
>The people who designed the original program obviously have a
>totally valueless product. Can they just give me a copy??
>(I don't have the time to re write the thing , otherwise I would)
>
>(anyone from intel who has a copy and the permission to send
>it to me feel free)
>--
>Anthony Marchini (to...@epix.net)
>Electronic Design Engineer
>American Locker Security Systems
>www.americanlocker.com
This raises the issue of whether the user community are obliged to
fund s/w companies to the letter of all of their licences. Issues such
as yours often arise where this is not practicle. I worked as a sys
admin in one outfit where the sys admin function was very under
staffed. S/W piracy was rife in the place because it was easier to
copy stuff than to go through the time consuming beurocracy of trying
to get the company to buy stuff that was absolutly needed.
My boss wanted to clean up or act (good intentions). However he wanted
to make sure that we rationalised what we used, for example stick to 2
editors rather than allowing everyone choose there own, and get better
rates on the licences etc. They also wanted to uninstall and reinstall
as occational utilities were needed on different machines. The plan
was nobel but the manpower to administer what was going to be a very
painful process was not available. I suggested that we simply estimate
what we were using, buy the stuff and lock it in a room. The users
would not have to clean out there PC's change tools etc. It would have
probably cost 100K for the s/w. We could not guarantee that the right
companies would receive the exactly right amount, but they would be
far better off than the way we were.
My plan was scoffed at by management, and in practice nothing was
done. I am long gone and I am sure that the problem was not addressed
since, so the s/w vendors got nothing out of my bosses intentions.
I do not know if this answers the original question - but what I am
trying to say is if you are this concerned about paying for this
particular piece of s/w then you probably pay for every single other
piece of s/w that you own, some of which you probably rarly use. You
are probably paying your share to the industry and no auditor or God
is going to strike you down for using this s/w. You could always buy a
piece of s/w from the same company asd throw it away, to be sure you
contributed to their bottom line - support issues aside.
Niall
Chris Wright
In article <5grlns$p...@llnews.ll.mit.edu>, Chris Burian
<cbu...@ll.mit.edu> writes
>
>This is a serious problem for older systems. Lots of CP/M stuff is
>sold by nobody, yet copyright is still retained by various lawyers,
>holding companies, and software companies that bought out failed
>businesses years ago. It sucks. Unfortunately, the secondary market
>for old software is very small and disorganized. I had QC2 I copied
>from somebody, but couldn't buy anywhere. Then luckily, I bought a
>whole MS C 5.1 package from a guy for $10 plus shipping, and now have
>legal QC, MS C, and MASM which I use for development '286 host to '188
>target. I didn't feel so guilty using stolen QC at home back then, seeing
>as I had bought VC++, but I could never have used it for work. Being
>legal feels so much better, but it would be awful if I hadn't found the
>opportunity to buy it.
>
>be bought by needful users.
>
some of this old stuff, which was written to
use minimal resources and to run fast on lower
powered processors. As far as mainstream PCs
are concerned maybe not, but for the increasing
world of small embedded systems they could get
another lease of life.
I still use QB4.5, and find it very good for
knocking up small programs in a hurry. We
often end up having comms links using an RS232
port on our systems, and need a program for
communicating and uploading/downloading from
any PC. QB4.5 does these a treat.
I also still use WordStar for memos and technical
documentation (though not for customer letters etc.)
I find that I can get into WordStar, type a memo,
print it and exit before Windoze and the Word have
even got started.
Maybe I'm just reactionary though :)
David Moisan
z...@dserve.com (Peter) wrote:
>
>AFAIK you cannot buy a CP/M license now, in fact not for a very long
No. But Caldera bought the rights and is supposed to be releasing a
public license to CP/M.
>Now things are coming full circle, with MS rumoured to be buying up
>the rights to various old 1970s and 1980s operating systems, probably
>including CP/M :)
Nope. Caldera's got CP/M. But what other OS's are there, anyway, for
old micros?
Dave
| David Moisan, N1KGH Email: dmo...@shore.net |
| WWW: http://www.shore.net/~dmoisan n1...@amsat.org |
| Invisible Disabilities Page: |
| http://www.shore.net/~dmoisan/invisible_disability.html |
| GE Superradio FAQ: |
| http://www1.shore.net/~dmoisan/faqs/superradio/gesr_faq.html |
Bill Sturm
Chris Burian wrote:
>
> In article <3330827f...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> Jonathan Kirwan <jki...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >we wanted to use Microsoft's QuickBASIC, version 4.5, for the
> >project. Actually, we wanted 5 copies for the project, since the
> >users may want to make "special modifications" on their own.
> >
> >had at home and was familiar with (he did NOT like the later
> >versions (7.0, 7.1, and Visual BASIC for DOS 1.0).
>
I bought two copies for a project last September from Programmers
Provantage. It was not in their catalog, but I called and they
had it.
--
Bill Sturm
bst...@gatecom.com
David R Brooks
z...@dserve.com (Peter) wrote:
[snip]
:Now things are coming full circle, with MS rumoured to be buying up
:the rights to various old 1970s and 1980s operating systems, probably
:including CP/M :)
On the same thread,
[snip]
:But when we called Microsoft, they said it wasn't being
:distributed and they had no further plans for the product. They
:wouldn't sell it to us.
Put these two together, and a disturbing pattern emerges (assuming
the "rumours" are correct).
Is MS running a campaign to buy up old OSs, so they can bury them? To
force us to use the current MS offering, since they own the whole
game? This will be a real problem to those of us with legacy systems
to maintain. (In my own work, I use a shareware clone of CP/M - it's
most unlikely MS will ever get their hands on that).
-- Dave Brooks <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb>
PGP public key via <http://www.iinet.net.au/~daveb/crypto.html>, or servers
"From" line rigged to foil spambots: daveb <at> iinet.net.au
David R Brooks
z...@dserve.com (Peter) wrote:
:
:>Nope. Caldera's got CP/M. But what other OS's are there, anyway, for
:>old micros?
:
:Nothing relevant I must admit, since any competent programmer could
:write even a full CP/M look-alike in a few months, in C. And there are
:public domain versions of CP/M in the CP/M user group library, which
:someone could presumably use as a starting point.
:
:What about MSX?
:
Also Chuck Falconer's DOS-Plus, and other CP/M replacements. Full
source code (assembler) included.
Can be found on such sites as
http://oak.oakland.edu/oak/cpm/index-cpm-pre.html