Searching \ for '[EE] Software licensing, was I say it is spinach .' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/io/serial/spis.htm?key=spi
Search entire site for: 'Software licensing, was I say it is spinach .'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Software licensing, was I say it is spinach .'
2005\08\22@063833 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> But when you 'buy' software you don't have any of the
>> freedoms you get with other products.
>
>You do. if you BUY them. You may not if you don't BUY them.

The one point about this that amuses me is the clown who wants to charge a
royalty fee on second hand recordings. He seems to figure that if I decode I
have had enough of his singing, and sell the recording then he should get a
cut of the sale price.

So what I want to know is - will he pay the builder, architect, plumber, et
al for the intellectual property that they have put into his house when it
was built, when he resells it? Or the designer of the car he owns, when he
sells that? At some point one really needs to figure that enough is enough.

Yes, buying a recording is a licence to replay a piece of intellectual
property that is carried on the vinyl or CD that is the carriage medium. I
am not allowed to copy it, and resell the copies - which I consider fair
enough. I am not allowed to do public performances of it, as that involves a
different licence agreement. But when I pass that item on to someone else he
wants another bite at the cherry.

Now the typical software licensing model is not that different. I am allowed
to install the software on one machine (some licenses allow several machines
provided only one can be used at any given time) - equivalent to the
"private license" for a recording. Some items I can install on multiple
machines - roughly equivalent to the "public broadcast", but typically I am
not allowed to recover the cost of the license by on-selling the original to
someone when I no longer have any use for it.

2005\08\22@064627 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Always assuming that the open source licensed software
>does not represent >95% of the system in cause.

There was a time when the IBM mainframe operating system came free with the
hardware.

Then someone else started making a code compatible system ... The chargeable
model changed.

2005\08\22@065811 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Alan,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:46:18 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >Always assuming that the open source licensed software
> >does not represent >95% of the system in cause.
>
> There was a time when the IBM mainframe operating system came free with the
> hardware.

I'm not sure of the details, but there was a choice of operating systems when I was a mainframe operator (mid
1970s, S/370 model 135) DOS, DOS/VS, and various OS variations (OS/VS1, OS/MFT, OS/MVT etc).  I don't think
they were free, otherwise why would anyone use the lower-capability ones?

> Then someone else started making a code compatible system ...

Hitachi, wasn't it - early 1980s?

> The chargeable model changed.

And how!  I think it was the 8100 series where the software cost more than the hardware - and since it was
new, nobody else had written an operating system for it, so you were stuck with IBM's pricing.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\08\22@071045 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>> Then someone else started making a code compatible system ...
>
>Hitachi, wasn't it - early 1980s?

I understood it was the Cray - Cray himself had worked at IBM on their
mainframe development, and when he went to setup the Cray Supercomputer
company, he used the IBM model as the underlying system.

2005\08\22@082347 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:10:30 +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote:

> >> Then someone else started making a code compatible system ...
> >
> >Hitachi, wasn't it - early 1980s?
>
> I understood it was the Cray - Cray himself had worked at IBM on their
> mainframe development, and when he went to setup the Cray Supercomputer
> company, he used the IBM model as the underlying system.

I don't think any of Cray's machines were IBM-compatible - he concentrated on high speed processing, rather
than trying to "steal" IBM's customers wheras Hitachi, if I remember correctly, did precisely that!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\08\22@082907 by olin piclist

face picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:
> but typically I am not allowed to recover the cost of the
> license by on-selling the original to someone when I no longer have any
> use for it.

I think you are specifically allowed to do that in some jurisdictions.  Many
license agreements I've seen mention the procedure for passing on the
rights, which usually envolves deleting any and all copies of the software,
passing on all the original media and documentation, etc.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\08\22@084617 by olin piclist

face picon face
Howard Winter wrote:
> I don't think any of Cray's machines were IBM-compatible - he
> concentrated on high speed processing, rather than trying to "steal"
> IBM's customers wheras Hitachi, if I remember correctly, did precisely
> that!

Didn't Amdahl (sp?) do it earlier than Hitachi?

*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\08\22@085945 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Didn't Amdahl (sp?) do it earlier than Hitachi?

Yeah, maybe that is who I was thinking of. I am pretty sure Hitachi were
quite late to the party.

2005\08\22@090915 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Olin,

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:47:01 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Howard Winter wrote:
> > I don't think any of Cray's machines were IBM-compatible - he
> > concentrated on high speed processing, rather than trying to "steal"
> > IBM's customers wheras Hitachi, if I remember correctly, did precisely
> > that!
>
> Didn't Amdahl (sp?) do it earlier than Hitachi?

Yup, that's dead right - I had an inkling that Hitachi wasn't first to do this, but my memory needs
upgrading...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\08\22@094313 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Yes, buying a recording is a licence to replay a piece of
> intellectual
> property that is carried on the vinyl or CD that is the carriage
> medium. I
> am not allowed to copy it, and resell the copies - which I consider
> fair
> enough. I am not allowed to do public performances of it, as that
> involves a
> different licence agreement. But when I pass that item on to someone
> else he
> wants another bite at the cherry.

The (amoral)(or is it immoral) clowns in our recording industry
association, and their ilk worldwide, want to claim that if you want
to copy your record onto CD or CD onto Flash player or ... for your
own use (with the original not being used when you are using a copy)
that you should pay a completely new fee of the same order of
magnitude that you paid for the original. They also claim that wearing
out is part of the original expectation and that if your original
fails then you should buy a new copy at full price. They make no
effort to make the material available in all the media that you may
wish to use it in - so if you can copy it but they don't supply it you
mustn't do it.

This has nothing to do with piracy/theft in the accepted sense or
playing multiple copies at once or any such. They are joist attempting
to find new ways to charge you more.

I think that most of these people used to be cigarette industry
executives who got fired for having low moral standards.




       RM.

2005\08\22@113121 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Russell,

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 01:19:07 +1200, Russell McMahon wrote:

> The (amoral)(or is it immoral)

It's immoral!  (That is it has bad morals, rather than none)

> clowns in our recording industry
> association, and their ilk worldwide, want to claim that if you want
> to copy your record onto CD or CD onto Flash player or ... for your
> own use (with the original not being used when you are using a copy)
> that you should pay a completely new fee of the same order of
> magnitude that you paid for the original.

In the same way they claim that piracy "costs the industry X billion a year" - meaning that if they could
charge as much as they wanted, that's what they'd make.  They (along with FAST and others in the software
business) completely ignore the fact that a lot of the time if people had to pay what these people want, they
wouldn't buy the darned thing in the first place - it's just not worth the price, so they haven't actually
lost a sale at all.

> They also claim that wearing
> out is part of the original expectation and that if your original
> fails then you should buy a new copy at full price.

I hope they make full payment to the original architect for the design, whenever their houses need
redecorating or refurbishing...

> They make no
> effort to make the material available in all the media that you may
> wish to use it in - so if you can copy it but they don't supply it you
> mustn't do it.

Immoral indeed!  They seem to think that they have the right to make profits of a level that they decide,
ignoring the fact that the market won't stand it.

> This has nothing to do with piracy/theft in the accepted sense or
> playing multiple copies at once or any such. They are joist attempting
> to find new ways to charge you more.

Oh yes!  ("joist"?  You mean they're trying to hit you with the charges, as if with a piece of wood? :-)

> I think that most of these people used to be cigarette industry
> executives who got fired for having low moral standards.

Indeed.  It reminds me somewhat of a South African dentist I went to in about 1978, who I suspect was thrown
out of the Bureau Of State Security for cruelty!  (It was such an ordeal that I couldn't bring myself to go to
a dentist for 10 years afterwards).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\08\22@121153 by Dave Tweed

face
flavicon
face
Alan B. Pearce <spam_OUTA.B.PearceTakeThisOuTspamrl.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Then someone else started making a code compatible system ...
> >
> >Hitachi, wasn't it - early 1980s?
>
> I understood it was the Cray - Cray himself had worked at IBM on their
> mainframe development, and when he went to setup the Cray Supercomputer
> company, he used the IBM model as the underlying system.

Try Gene Amdahl. Amdahl Corporation now appears to be owned by Fujitsu.

Some Amdahl machines had higher performance *and* lower cost than the
corresponding IBM iron.

-- Dave Tweed

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...