[DECtalk] legality of decTalk

[William Prestwich]

The major problem here is the code is assumed to be open source and is
being treated as such.

It is not.

Part of the reason why many have chosen not to work on this code for so
long is because of this. They likely deemed their time to be better spent
on something that might not end in a cease and desist.

But, somebody who was passionate and skilled enough came across it and got
it working. Now those who have had nothing to do with those efforts are
putting it at risk for personal gain. Can you see how this is quite...
caustic?

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:44 PM Karen Lewellen <klewellen at shellworld.net>
wrote:

> This is a fine point. It's  why I personally want to insure they can
> indeed
> make money off their efforts, no questions asked later.
> I can, for example, imagine Red Hat might wish to license their success
> for Fedora enterprise business products.  a solid paper trail lets them
> negotiate with Red Hat without anyone worrying that those  holding the
> code rights might get upset.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, Will Prestwich wrote:
>
> > What seems to be lost on many of you is if someone achieves a major
> milestone in some code that was dormant for years (ie in this case getting
> it working again on modern systems) there’s a somewhat unspoken etiquette
> and in my opinion, a degree of common decency, that you should maybe
> consult the person or people who went to this effort in the first place
> about what you want to do with the code in its current state henceforth.
> >
> > This is especially true if you are intending to make money off of it,
> which some have alluded to.
> >
> > Making the assumption that ‘this code is mine now to do whatever I want
> now that it has become useful to me’ to anyone with the most basic of
> social skills can see that this is what we would call a ‘dick move’.
> >
> > Inclusive of this, is doing others bidding to previous owners of the
> code about ownership, particularly only now that it is in a working state.
> >
> > To spell it out for you: these conversations and broad assumptions about
> what to do next has done nothing but upset the people who did the heavy
> lifting to get it working again in the first place.
> >
> >
> >> On 2 Dec 2022, at 1:42 pm, Karen Lewellen <klewellen at shellworld.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> that is fine, so get that in writing from Roger, that Roger does not
> care what happens, and everyone can play around as much as they want.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 1 Dec 2022, Josh Kennedy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>  [NON-Text Body part not included]
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dectalk mailing list
> >> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> >> https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dectalk mailing list
> > Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> > https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> >_______________________________________________
> Dectalk mailing list
> Dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
> https://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/dectalk/attachments/20221202/12b5f0b0/attachment.htm>