Re: VAX software available for download

From: Bill Gunshannon (bill_at_cs.uofs.edu)
Date: 06/28/05 

Date: 28 Jun 2005 18:09:52 GMT

In article <d9rti8$d8n$1@lnx107.hrz.tu-darmstadt.de>,
        m.kraemer@gsi.de (Michael Kraemer) writes:
> In article <3id40uFkuqr6U1@individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>> >
>> > maybe the US is located on another planet,
>> > but where I live I go into shop and can buy a car,
>> > either new or used, with no restrictions on its use
>> > and full rights to resell it.
>>
>> Really? Over here you have to get the governments permission in the
>> form of a drivers license and a vehicle registration before you can
>> even drive it off the lot. The latter requires that you do business
>> with another business in the form of getting insurance.
>
> yes, but these are restrictions imposed by law,
> and not by the car maker. I give money, he gives car.

Well, I have always thought the car vs. software was a bad analogy
as one is physical and the other non-tangible.

But let's stick with it for just a moment longer. Can I assume the
Car Lease disease hasn't hit German like a brick yet? It's all the
rage over here and much more to the point. Now, you don't make a
"down payment", but you pay an "upfront fee". You still make a
monthly payment. At the end of the lease you have to return the car
to the dealership because you don't own it. You have settlement
costs which can vary depending on if you drove the car more than
the lease allowed. (How's that for a restriction!!) Basicly, this
is more akin to acquiring (note, I didn't say buying) software.

>
>> >
>> > Not quite. I don't know the US situation but over here
>> > we have the concept of "immoral contracts".
>>
>> We have the concept of illegal contracts as well, but you would have
onoly thing you "buy" is the media
>> a real hard time convincing a court that the VMS license is somehow
>> an illegal contract. Especially when you consider that there is no
>> reason why you had to enter into the contract in the first place unless
>> you wanted to.
>>
>> > Don't know if I could translate that correctly,
>>
>> Es ist mir egal. Ich spreche auch Deutsch.
>
> But not all potential listeners. The german term is "sittenwidrig".

Yeah, I understand that.

> Back to the topic. It's not about the VMS license in particular,
> it's about rights the producers still claims after the customer
> has given his money,

Yeah, but in the case of software, rights is a good term to use.
In most cases (and VMS in particular) you don't buy the software,
you pay for the right to use it. And that use is bound by terms
agreed to by both parties prior to paying the fee. You not reading
the agreement does not constitute a breech on HP's part and you are
still bound by it.

>
>> > but an (admittedly exaggerated) example would be to hire a contract killer
>> > for some job and not paying him for his work. The contract is void
>> > from the very beginning, so he has zero chance to get his money, legally.
>> > (Of course being a professional, he will find ways to get his money, though :-)
>>
>> Surely your not equating VMS Licensing with hiring a hitman!! :-)
>
> as said, exaggerated example.
> But at least it generated some smileys :-)
>
>> > Or another, less exaggerated example: Surrogacy (? if some woman pays
>> > some other woman to be pregnant instead of herself) is probably
>> > allowed in the US, strictly forbidden over here. The contract,
>> > no matter if both agreed, is void.
>>
>> But, like I said, you would have a hard time proving anything wrong
>> with the contract nature of the VMS License or pretty much any soft-
>> ware license, unless you know one that requires giving up your first-
>> born male shild for the software.
>
> I brought this up as an example that contracts are not always
> at will of its parties. Some contracts could be void from the
> beginning by law.

Yes, but you can rest assured that way too many lawyers have looked
at HP's license for any court to agree with you that the contract
is adverse. :-)

>
>>
>> Why more consumer friendly? The consumer is neither the owner or
>> the one who put the effort into developing the product. Why should
>> the consumer desires be held higher than the developer?
>
> Why should it be the other way round (in your favor) ?

Because it is the fruits of my labor. I produced it. What did
the consumer do to deserve any consideration at all in the matter,
beyond coveting my work that is?

> In the end, it's a matter of power.

How so? As you say, power can be used to turn things around. But
that doesn't change the morality of the issue. The government used
to say that owning another human being was legal. That never made
it moral. Same true here. I have the right to what I produce by the
sweat of my brow.. No one else has a moral right to the fruits of my
labors.

>
>>
>> Maybe, but doesn't change the fact that it is the labors of the producer
>> that resulted in the product in the first place. What does the consumer
>> bring to the table beyond a desire to have someone else's property?
>
> His money.

And? How does his money give him any inherent right to my product?
I am free to barter with him. He offers money I offer him in return
what I think is a fair return on his money. If we agree a deal is
struck. If not, he is free to seek product elsewhere and I am free
to seek other customers. But none of this implies he has some
inherent right to what I have to offer or some right to set the price
for it. And the customer certainly doesn't have the right to change
the terms of the contract gratis after the fact.

>
>> >
>> >> There is nothing
>> >> I can see that supports this premise.
>> >
>> > Sure. Why should *your* way be the best ?
>> > I can see nothing that supports this premise.
>>
>> I find that statement hard to believe. How would you feel if you and
>> one other person went out to dig a hole, you did all the work and the
>> other guy got paid? That's basicly what your asking for. You want
>> the producer to not be paid what he thinks is a fair wage for his
>> labors. If DEC were told up front that it would not be allowed to
>> profit from any software it wrote do you think VMS would even exist?
>
> Again, I never have written that I wouldn't pay a software maker
> for his work. It's just that I would not like to be restricted by
> him to use the product.
>
>>
>> The fact that you express the idea that individuals are not entitled to
>> the fruits of their labors.
>
> What makes you think so ?
> I bring my hard-earned money to some software maker and he still wants
> to teach me how I should not use his product ?

He's not teaching you anything. He offered you use of his product
under certain conditions for your payment of a certain amount of
money. If you both agree, it's a contract. If you want to do more
with the product than what was agreed upon then you need to pay more
money. But nothing gives you more rights than those imparted by the
owner. That's the nature of commerce and contracts. If you go to
a store for apples and they are $,10 each. You get 2 for your $.20.
You can't turn around later and say I deserve 4 more apples. Why
is it that people think things related to computers are different
than life in the real world?

>
>> >
>> > Again, what makes you think so ?
>>
>> You said so. You claim that I do not have the right to set a price on
>> my labors. That I should be compelled to meet your desires rather than
>> my own.
>
> No I didn't. You can set the price (in $), and I can choose if I buy or not.
> But once I buy, I want to have the right to do what I want.

But that's not what was being offered to you. If you want that the
price is going to be much higher. Like I said, you can do that with
VMS. I estimate the price is probably about $9,000,000,000.00. But
if you buy a single "right to use on one computer" license for $2000
that's all you get.

>
>> >
>> > Oh plz, not this one ! Open Source == communism, plz, leave me alone
>> > with this stuff !
>>
>> I didn't say that. I am totally in favor of Open Source. But not
>> forced Open Source. Again, if the producer wants to put his work
>> out there for the public that's fine. He is getting what he wanted
>> for his labors. But no one else should have the ability to force
>> another's labors into the Open Source world.
>
> It's your choice if you give away source code or not.

Source, object, executable. No difference. It's my choice what I do
with my property. No one else's. I can let you use my property but,
again, I get to set the rules because it's still my property. You
don't buy software, you license it's use. Read the agreement sometime.
If you don't agree with the requirements, don't pay your money and don't
use it. But it's still someone else's property.

>
>> The producer, by the
>> act of creating his work, has earned the right to determine when,
>> where, and how it will be used. No one else.
>
> Yes and no. Once the customer pays, he should have the rights.

The customer has only the rights conveyed to him by the owner of
the property. If it is not your property then you have no inherent
rights where that property is coincerned. The producer conveys rights
commensurate with what you pay.

> I really see no logic difference to other goods.

The difference is that you are comparing it to tangibles where
ownership changes hands with the exchange of money. Software is
not and in very few cases has ever been like that. You do not "buy"
the software you buy a license to use it subject to the owner's
restrictions.

>
>> > The soviet union crashed for a lot of reasons, but certainly
>> > not due to IP disregard. Plz.
>>
>> There was no "property" in the Soviet Union.
>
> Sure there was. Not property in the sense of means of production
> (that's what communism is all about).
> But AFAIK you could own some land for personal use.

Maybe, if you were in the politburo. The common man owned nothing.
All private property was taken when the murdered the czar. Only the
upper-class continued to own anything. Ooops. there wasn't supposed
to be an upper class.

>
>> There was no reward for
>> excellence.
>
> Sure there was. You just couldn't "make" billions of $$$$,
> (except, of course, you were higher up in the "communist" party)

No, actually, there wasn't. It didn't matter if you dug all day
long or just leaned on your shovel. At the end of the day you
got one day's rations. Sometimes.

>
>> There was no reward for anything beyond the mediocre.
>
> And how come that the soviets had nuclear weapons only
> shortly after the US, despite the industrial part of their country was
> mostly destroyed by the german armies ?

Same reason they had the Z80 and the VAX. We were naive and they stole it.

> (not that I think that this is something one should be proud of)
> Shall I say Sputnik ?

Sputnik was simple technology. And, they were willing to take greater
risks than we were.

>
>> The
>> result, after a few generations, was no innovation, no work beyond the
>> bare minimum required
>
> The russian (or other eastern bloc) scientists
> I met in the late 80s to early 90s were
> quite knowledgeable people. They just didn't have the material
> resources as the western people.

This is wandering too much into politics and has nothing to do with
the original problem. They held lots of people captive, including
some very inteligent people. Not something they should brag about.

>> and the eventual colapse as they could no longer
>> compete with a world that was striving for excellence. The result was
>> inevitable.
>
> It's an example that an inept stalinist party can't run a country
> with five year plans dictating everything in detail down to the production
> of shoelaces. Little else.

It was evidence that their whole economic model was flawed. The
most successful countries in the world (yours and mine at the top
of the list) are ones where capitalism thrives.

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>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VAX software available for download
    ... >> form of a drivers license and a vehicle registration before you can ... I give money, he gives car. ... >> reason why you had to enter into the contract in the first place unless ... but doesn't change the fact that it is the labors of the producer ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: VAX software available for download
    ... I give money, he gives car. ... > reason why you had to enter into the contract in the first place unless ... It's not about the VMS license in particular, ... but doesn't change the fact that it is the labors of the producer ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: VAX software available for download
    ... I give money, he gives car. ... > reason why you had to enter into the contract in the first place unless ... It's not about the VMS license in particular, ... but doesn't change the fact that it is the labors of the producer ...
    (comp.sys.dec)
  • Re: Rude to ask for repairmans license and insurance
    ... then write up what they say in a contract and make ... Usually adding the time or money isn't a big deal to me. ... If I hire a repairman, would it be rude for me to ask to see his license ... If a jurisdiction requires a license, they often require that the license ...
    (alt.home.repair)
  • Re: just SCO but look at FSF....
    ... >> Yet it might affect the entire license. ... >> appreciating frivolity. ... and are strongly tied to money. ... "In order for a contract to exist, ...
    (comp.unix.sco.misc)