[DECtalk] legality of decTalk

[William Prestwich]

It depends how litigious they are.
We were not intending to poke to bear to find out - but someone is doing
that for us. Which is annoying.

On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 2:58 PM Karen Lewellen <klewellen at shellworld.net>
wrote:

> certainly, which is why the most effortless solution is for those who own
> the code, <is that roger?> relinquish rights to those who are currently
> making magic with the code now..I am unsure why this cannot be done.
>
> Unless Roger does not have the right to say he does not care?
> Karen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2022, William Prestwich wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> 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/20221202/9165171e/attachment-0001.htm>