Licenses (was Re: Should I add a "Micro" PDP11/73 to the Herd?)

From: allisonp <>
Date: Thu Jun 22 20:49:01 2000

>Sigh. Allison has this part of it wrong, and it is a common problem.
>The book *is* the license. The contents (words etc) are licensed to the
>particular bits of paper and cover that you are holding in your hand. When
>you transfer the paper, the words go with it. You are forbidden from

No, the book is media (I didn't say paper, tape, or ???).

>copying the words off the paper and putting them on to some other piece of
>paper. What you *own* in the book case is some newsprint, some wax, and
>some binder thread *and that is all*.

You own media! Bay saying Book it's an implied bound paper media.

> You license the software and it is licensed (bound) to your CPU.
> You own the CPU and may dispose of it how you wish, however if you
> give it away or burn it or throw it away, the software goes with
> Intel tried to make this model possible with their serial number
> scheme but the market rejected it.
>So software, unlike books, is licensed to _people_. (or corporations)
>because people and corporations like to be able to change their CPU and not
>bother with relicensing their software. If you throw away the corporation
>then the license gets thrown away too, just like if you had thrown away the

It can be, but, I have an ODBC driver that is "per CPU, unlimited users"
that happens to be for a server license.

>> The copyright means you can't make copies
>>of it (other than limited amounts for reference with attribution) to sell
>>or give away without expressed permission.
>Again, this isn't quite correct. The rights to make copies of a "work"
>initially rest with the creator of that work. The creator (author what have
>you) can then choose to grant limited subsets of those rights (or not) to
>other people. As an author I am the copyright holder, I can assign some or
>all of those rights to a "publisher" who is allowed to make copies of my
>work, provided they send me a fee. *EVERYTHING* works this way, everything
>from books to software to music to DVDs and to ill fated Divx disks.

I think I said exactly that. The YOU is the holder of the finished product
not a
LICENSED producer who by expressed permission (contract) can and does
produce copies for profit. However My reference also goes to intended use.
For example a Encylopedias, they are an information source as reference
where wholesale copying is bad but, the contained compendium of knowledge
is NOT the property but, the format and package is.

>> Software is going the
>>route of, you pay for the media, manuals and support(optional) and also
>>for rights to use under specified conditions as a CONTRACT. There
>>lies the difference. the manuals are property (usually) but the software
>>provided under some stipulation (even freeware!) regarding it's use.
>Manuals still have copyrights, you cannot make copies of them without
>permission. This is particularly true of manuals that are distributed as
>PDF files. Generally you only have the write to print one copy for you own
>personal use!

Irrelevent. As I've specified manuals to be as books but distinct from
the software itself. It's the distinction between them that was to point
being made even though logically they can be identical.

>Book authors have traditionally sold the rights to publish their works
>(create copies) in paper form, without stipulating a transfer fee when the
>book changes owners. They did that not because they were generous, but
>because there wasn't any way they could figure out how to do it. (The
>e-book guys can identify change of ownership and guess what, you can't give
>your ebook to another person without them having to rebuy the book!)

You sure? there are such things as licensed copies, copies under NDA and
restricted printings.

 the assumption is you do not retain a copy in both cases. There is the
difference. If I give a paper book(tape or other media) away I no longer
a copy, electronic means allow me to give a COPY and keep the "original"
that is a clear copyright violation.

There is also the case of I have a music CD, I copy it (or parts) to tape
for use
in my car where CDs are not useful. This would be format translation and is
usually allowed.

>Just because you have a copy of "Catcher in the Rye" it only gives you the
>right to read it, not aloud at some gathering, or to put it on as a school

Correct to a point as profit taking venture. If you used it for schooling
or non profit as a out loud reading it is now out side that.

>Anyway, I don't mean to pick on anyone, it is not unusual for people to
>believe that by buying a record they somehow "own" the music that is on
>that record (or CD), they don't. They have only secured the right to listen

>to it as often as they would like without additional payments to the

Cant find fault in that. Its the exact case. Also no person from the
company or author is allowed to take it from you. They can audit you to
see if it's for profit (ASCAP!). DJs for instance!

>author. For some really interesting insight into just how intellectual
>property works, check out the Napster and MP3 cases that have a lot of
>their material posted on various web sites.

Can of worms. At the core is who "owns the original work", what that
original work is and who is allowed to profit from distribution.

The best case of this is I make a recording my arrangement of Bach
using pots and PC and sell it on CD. Who owns what?

For software, it's worse. I write a version of Basic for 8080, assemble
it using MS-MAC, using a Z80 box, under cpm and sell it on a sony
microfloppy. Does Darthmoth College get something for the basis
of the language? Howabout MS for the use of the MAC asembler
used to get a binary? does Sony share as it's their media? Howabout
Zilog as it was their cpu design even though it was a Mostek chip?
Oh and Intel for their cpu and nemonics? Oh and the company that
owned the Z80 box for accounting?

What is created?, Who did it, who has a legit share?

In any case the license (contract) for RT-11 is specific and any misuse
outside that permitted use is a violation subject to legal remedy.

Received on Thu Jun 22 2000 - 20:49:01 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:02 BST