On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 19:13:58 +0100, Kris Steenhaut wrote:
>> No, they are not your property. They are still copyrighted by IBM, but they are
>testcase, so you are free to
use
>> them.
>You are mangling different items, I'll elaborate by an example:
[...]
>the trademark protection. When I get files for free, the files are my property, and I
>can do anything with them
>within the limits of the legislation of my country.
>There might be some argument at what I'm entitled to do with the files, but
>nevertheless the files are my
property.
Note: you are downloading testcase kernels for free. This doesn't mean that you are
actually entitled to use
them on your e.g. Warp 4 system. And even if it's definitely legal & fair, it's still
testcase.
You may also download all sorts of other things for free (like all sorts of upgrades),
but still you are not allowed
to install them w/o having the proper license. Sometimes you may do so and they will
work even w/o the
actual original software package, but that's illegal.
>> Please note: not everyone likes to run testcase kernels and most people would
>definitely not want to
>> run one.
>After a few years of handling them I'm convinced there isn't a bit of difference
>between the testcase thingies
and
>the "real" ones.
That may be true, anyway you don't want to tell normal end-users to get a testcase
kernel from
testcase.ibm.com, just to get an OS working. :-)
>> The official fixpaks are not free for download nor does anyone have the right to
>use an UNI-kernel
>> from a fixpak archive with his e.g. Warp4 copy.
>If you can download a UNI-kernel for free you are entitled to use it as it is your
>property.
Just because you are able to download something for free doesn't mean that you have
the right to use it.
For example: Previously Warp 4 fixpaks were downloadable for free. *but* still you
needed to have a valid
warp 4 license to use them. If you used them on your Warp 3 copy, then you were
actually acting against the
law, even though the download was free. It's the same with MCP. You may buy them w/o
having to specify
your warp 4 license, *but* if you don't have one, it's actually illegal. It will run
of course, but it's illegal.
>> Think about some bigger company that is using OS/2 Warp 4
>> machines. You can't tell them to "use testcase kernels".
>"Bigger companies" can pay what they want for what the want to have. Or does Netlabs
>have some
contract with some
>"bigger"companies? :-)
That's not the problem. If we get ACPI support working, so that OS/2 will boot from an
ACPI-only machine,
then the users should be legally able to use that enhancement w/o having legal
troubles nor having the need
to download testcase kernels. Testcase kernels *may* break your system. I'm not asking
about wether to use
them or not, but to be honest. I'm not using testcase kernels on production machines
like on e.g. my main
machine nor on my server and I know why.
>> Also I don't even know if it's legal to run a UNI-kernel (even testcase) on a W4
>machine.
>Let's not abuse concepts "legal" and illegal". Whether something is legal or not, in
>the end it's for the courts
to
>decide, not M$, nor Big Blue nor any other party at stake.
The problem is that if we want to have proper ACPI support, then this support should
work at least on Warp 4
systems w/o any sorts of legal issues. That's my opinion. Otherwise everyone would
need to get MCP or eCS
(I'm not even sure, if those versions contain UNI kernels).
>> Anyway, even if its
>> legal, its still testcase. Strangely no disclaimer is shipped with testcase kernels.
>That's not our problem. Remember the code Napoléon, if you get it for free, within
>the limits of law, *it is* your
>property. Other than declaring war to there is nothing Mr Bush can do about it.
But that's definitely not true. If an update to a product is runable by itself, then
this doesn't mean that you
have the right to use that product, because you didn't pay for it. You may still do
it, but actually that's illegal.
It's a non-issue for home-users (still it's stupid to tell people that they have to
get a testcase/fixpak kernel from
IBM), but for companys it IS an issue.
>> Those are testcase and no one may put the official releases (from fixpaks!) onto
>any website. If he does,
he is
>> acting against IBM copyright.
>Wrong. IBM copyright is about copyrights. If they give files away without any
>restriction, that is their problem.
Like I said above. If it's working, then you are lucky, because a single home-user
won't get caught. But for a
company this is different. You won't find one, that would do it that way.
If you are using all sorts of fixpaks to build yourself a working TCP/IP 4.3 stack,
then I think that you don't
have the right to use it, because you never paid for it and the installation of those
fixpaks requires a licensed
TCP/IP 4.3 version.
>Remember, I haven't and as far as I know nobody hasn't made any agreement with Big
>Blue prior to
downloading these
>files.
This is testcase software we are talking about. Like I said, I wouldn't run testcase
kernels (or software) on
productive machines. If you do it at your home and it's working, well then you are
lucky, but using this in a
productive environment would be mad. If data loss occurs, then you will be responsible
for it.
>And to repeat myself, I haven't made any agreement with IBM. So I just have to comply
>to the laws of my
country and
>the EC, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't know for sure, but for e.g. fixpaks, you have to agree with their terms and
conditions. I think that there
is no agreement on testcase software, because IBM doesn't want to get sued in any way,
if an error (means
dataloss) occurs. And that's also the reason, why I think that this solution isn't
good and definitely not good as
an requirement for ACPI support.
>> Also if you use those files, it's considered unsupported
>Who cares? Who should care.
Your system, if you use it for anything non-trivial. :-)
>> and illegal.
>And that's a lie of course. If I got them legally, I can use them legally. It is as
>simple as that.
So, if you are building a working OS/2 version by using all sorts of testcase kernels,
fixpak files and so on and
using that one, it's legal? I think this question should be answered by a lawyer.
>> Not a good
>> deal (especially not for companies), even if you get ACPI support that way.
>Nevertheless a better deal than using M$. :-)
of course :-) But that's not the problem.
cu, Kiewitz
-----------
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe acpi-os2
end
