Hi All

Still working on the training for RSLogix theme. I was wondering if anyone has tried RSLogix with WINE on Linux. Haven't been able to find a suitable platform with a legal, documented, copy of Windows. It seems it's not legal to sell the license with the machine. A customer offered to give me one of a large stack of unused OEM copies he had, but that seems to be illegal as well.

Regards

cww

 

I don't know but SLC500 runs ok under freedos hehe

Marc

 

I tried it a year or so ago without success. Haven't tried anything with Wine recently, so you may do better now. I'll probably have time to mess around with it again in a couple of months. Let us know if you get anywhere.

Tried to bring RSLinx as well, but no go there either. All you'd be able to do with that is use the TCP/IP side. You probably cannot get the portions which work with the DH+ drivers to even
load, much less work. And the licenses to get AB to let you talk directly to a KT(?) card preclude OSS. So far ABLE is a better solution on open source systems on Ethernet. Haven't looked at the DF1 stuff yet either.

One thing I have thought about, but don't have time to pursue, is to take Ron Gage's code and try to spoof as an RSLinx Gateway. I don't know if using a packet sniffer and trying to reverse
engineer the communications between Gateway and client nodes is legal, however.

MB
--
Michael R. Batchelor - Industrial Informatics, Inc.
Contribute to society: http://www.distributed.net/ogr/

 

On March 24, 2003 21:45, Curt Wuollet wrote:
<clip>
> I was wondering if anyone has tried RSLogix with
> WINE on Linux.

I imagine it would go well with a nice beaujolais, although some may feel a merlot may be more suitable for something like this.

I would have thought though that you would be the one to tell *us* the answer to that one. I can't imagine you not at least trying it. Let us know how it works out.

> Haven't been able to find a suitable
> platform with a legal, documented, copy of Windows.
> It seems it's not legal to sell the license with the
> machine. A customer offered to give me one of a large
> stack of unused OEM copies he had, but that seems to
> be illegal as well.
<clip>

You can't actually "buy" a copy of Windows, you can only license the use of it. I believe that technically, if you sell a used computer you are supposed to erase the orginal copy of Windows which you licensed from Microsoft, and the buyer of the hardware is supposed to purchase a new software license for the computer. You can't transfer your license to someone else when you don't need it anymore. It simply more or less "expires" when you stop using it.

However, I am not aware of anyone actually observing the above in the sale of used computers on a small scale, although I believe this has been enforced via the courts in the United States in at least one case with a larger company trying to sell off their IT equipment.

Software publishers can write all the legal nonsence they wish into "license agreements". Whether they have any legal validity in any particular country is a matter of national laws, so I am not sure just how solid a foundation the non-transferable license concept rests upon.

However, none of this is intended to discourage you from being anything other than scrupulously honest. Microsoft doesn't seem to be chasing down too many individuals over this heinous crime, but no doubt in your case they are looking forward to making an exception.


************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

> Still working on the training for RSLogix theme.
> I was wondering if anyone has tried RSLogix with
> WINE on Linux. Haven't been able to find a suitable
> platform with a legal, documented, copy of Windows.
> It seems it's not legal to sell the license with the
> machine. A customer offered to give me one of a large
> stack of unused OEM copies he had, but that seems to
> be illegal as well.

Not legal to sell the license with the machine? Yeah, whatever. Here's what my Windows 2000 EULA says.

Transfer to Third Party. The
initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of
the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include
all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA,
and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No
Rental. You may not rent, lease, or lend the Product.

Microsoft has a page at:

http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/eula.asp#6 that answers whether or not its legal to sell the software you have bought or used.

OEM products, you're probably right. Those stay with an original machine, because, surprise surprise, they were sold to an OEM for them to install.

As for RSLogix on Wine, I have no idea. I suspect not. Wine's lacking in its RPC implementation, which I suspect that RSLogix uses heavily.

Alex Pavloff - [email protected]
Eason Technology -- www.eason.com

 

Curt,

To add to what Michael Griffin said, it is not clear at all that it is "illegal" to include your copies of software when you sell a computer. Back in the day, publishers similarly tried to limit the resale (and other use) or books. This lead to the "First Sale" doctrine. Although software publishers would like you to believe that a slip of paper they include with their software, or a click-thru agreement that no-one reads makes law, this is not so. It is at best a contract, and one that may not be valid or enforcable under the law. As Michael put it:

> Software publishers can write all the legal nonsence they wish into "license agreements". Whether they have any legal validity in any particular country is a matter of national laws, so I am not sure just how solid a foundation the non-transferable license concept rests upon.
>

RAH

 

Thanks Michael

It sure is hard to do this without pulling out the _big_ checkbook. Not to mention compromising on principles. I dunno, I think this Windows stuff might be too hard for me. I may have to settle for using the stuff at work and learning under stress, a few minutes at a time, until a reasonable solution presents itself. I can't quite rationalize buying a whole new system and a PLC to be able to run one application for the short time neccessary to learn it. I'm losing enthusiasm rapidly. I've done whole projects that were less hassle than simply learning about this proprietary stuff. Oh well, I tried. Rockwell _did_ send me a CD with information when I registered. Of course it doesn't run on Linux but, most of it is in PDF format so, with some screwing around, I can read it with Xpdf or the Acrobat reader. That'll have to do for now. I'm not finding the info I want but, I suspect it's only available through training, or if you buy the full subscription. Perhaps the company will spring for that someday.

Regards

cww

 

Hi Michael

It's not so much that I am paranoid, but that it's imperative that I do not compromise any of the OSS work I do. As a result I have to be very circumspect in regard to licenses and NDA's and such, I enter into. These imaginative and far reaching IP claims are like a cancer that can lay dormant for years and then become a fatal issue. We have seen this quite a bit in the automation sector. Ignoring the silly and untested shrinkwrap terms like most people do could provide a hole through the IP barrier and since we have the best justice money can buy, it doesn't matter for those of modest means whether they are actually enforceable at the end of the day. What if they pushed all the click throughs? The cost of non-compliance with the monopoly has ruined many more fortunate than myself. The assets they could recover are minimal (Take my 91 Dodge,..Please! and my ancient computers) but they might be able to shut down the project or my business or harass my employers.(don't laugh). We are all subject to this very fuzzy gray area as the agreements are persistant and cumulative and open to selective enforcement at any time, even if quite groundless. (Witness SCO VS IBM) I could hardly plead ignorance.

[email protected] wrote:
> ------------ Forwarded Message ------------
> From: Michael Griffin
>
> On March 24, 2003 21:45, Curt Wuollet wrote:
> <clip>
>
>>I was wondering if anyone has tried RSLogix with
>>WINE on Linux.
>
> I imagine it would go well with a nice beaujolais, although some may feel a
> merlot may be more suitable for something like this.

I think MadDog 20/20 is more in line with foundry work. Or perhaps something in a vintage Thunderbird. Or in keeping with the shrinkwrap theme, Box_O_Port.

> I would have thought though that you would be the one to tell *us* the answer
> to that one. I can't imagine you not at least trying it. Let us know how it
> works out.

I will do that. I haven't spent much time trying to run Windows apps so I'm not very well up on WINE. I didn't like how the WP suite or Top Page ran and mentioned C:\ paths, etc. But, they did run.

>
>>Haven't been able to find a suitable
>>platform with a legal, documented, copy of Windows.
>>It seems it's not legal to sell the license with the
>>machine. A customer offered to give me one of a large
>>stack of unused OEM copies he had, but that seems to
>>be illegal as well.
>
> <clip>
>
> You can't actually "buy" a copy of Windows, you can only license the use of
> it. I believe that technically, if you sell a used computer you are supposed
> to erase the orginal copy of Windows which you licensed from Microsoft, and
> the buyer of the hardware is supposed to purchase a new software license for
> the computer. You can't transfer your license to someone else when you don't
> need it anymore. It simply more or less "expires" when you stop using it.

Actually it goes into limbo until you destroy all copies in some licenses and with others it seemingly remains in effect with no specific provision for termination.

> However, I am not aware of anyone actually observing the above in the sale of
> used computers on a small scale, although I believe this has been enforced
> via the courts in the United States in at least one case with a larger
> company trying to sell off their IT equipment.
>
> Software publishers can write all the legal nonsence they wish into "license
> agreements". Whether they have any legal validity in any particular country
> is a matter of national laws, so I am not sure just how solid a foundation
> the non-transferable license concept rests upon.

No one has enough money to find out. That's the catch.

> However, none of this is intended to discourage you from being anything other
> than scrupulously honest. Microsoft doesn't seem to be chasing down too many
> individuals over this heinous crime, but no doubt in your case they are
> looking forward to making an exception.

I'll give the jack booted thugs all the Linux CDs they can carry. That's gallows humor, didn't you get your letter from the BSA? :^)

Regards

cww

> ************************
> Michael Griffin
> London, Ont. Canada
> ************************

 

Not to belabour a point, but it occured to me that someone may be wondering why there is a restriction on selling used copies of Windows. This would appear to be for the purposes of what is generally termed a "price maintenance" system.

Price maintenance systems are used by various manufacturers of branded goods, including many that have nothing to do with computers. The objective is typically to prevent discounting of goods (and any resulting general downward price pressure). The schemes generally work by maintaining tight control over distribution and preventing secondary markets from arising. If you can't legally sell your copy of Windows to a used software dealer, then no one can organise a significant secondary market in legal discount Windows software which would compete with sales of new software.

Some of the terms of the Windows license agreement may make more sense when viewed in this light.


************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

Hi Alex

That's pretty much what I said. Nobody offered a machine with a consumer version with the EULA, certificate, printed materials, etc. Most came with a preload (OEM) version and no docs. Many sellers didn't know or want to talk about it. I suspect many, many folks are technically in violation. This isn't an option for me. I'm checking to see if I can track down what came with my laptop, if Dell keeps track of such things. But I suspect I need a newer version than
W95 anyway. My hardware might run W98 but I wouldn't bet on anything later than that. Don't have any more time till next Monday. Someone suggested EBAY, but that's kinda time intensive too. I'll find something eventually, I've seen customers throw away leftovers from upgrades, etc. or stuff that hadn't been installed before they installed Linux. One inventive soul was offering the OEM version with a random piece of computer hardware. He says this makes it legit. :^) There seems to be a pretty seamless system to make you buy the latest version and the
new hardware to run it,if you need Windows. Maybe after tax time.

Regards

cww

 

I *think* the top-end Windows licenses come with downgrade rights / options, so that might be one way to go: buy XP deluxe (or whatever they call it) and then downgrade to W98/W95.

This is rather an expensive way to acquire old software, of course.

Jiri
--
Jiri Baum <[email protected]> http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jirib
MAT LinuxPLC project --- http://mat.sf.net --- Machine Automation Tools

 

Downgrade rights only apply to volume purchases.

Alex Pavloff - [email protected]
Eason Technology -- www.eason.com

 

On March 28, 2003 01:20, Alex Pavloff wrote:
<clip>
> Downgrade rights only apply to volume purchases.
<clip>

To add further clarification, the "downgrade" option was intended for customers who had large numbers of existing older Windows NT or 2000 systems. The "downgrade" allowed them to install new computers with older operating systems. When they were ready to upgrade all the systems together at once, they could apply the Windows XP licenses they already purchased at the
introductory price instead of buying new ones (at the regular price) for those computers. The purpose of all this conversion back and forth was to avoid running two or more versions of Windows in the same office at the same time, with all the attendent administration problems that can cause.

I believe the "downgrade" option was introduced to make the new MS "License 6" terms a little more palatable to their larger customers.

If you really need to buy Windows 98, then check with some software distributors to see if they can get a copy. Some industrial OEMs are still
shipping systems with Windows 95 or 98 on it, so I assume they are getting it from somewhere.

I wouldn't be surprised though if you could get an entire used computer (sans monitor, etc.) with Windows 98 already on it for less than what you would pay for a retail copy of Windows. If you have the right connections, you can probably even get an old PC that was destined for the scrap bin for free. New desk top PCs are so cheap, there isn't much market for used ones, especially since ones more than a couple of years old are considered inadequate for the
latest Windows software. Windows 98 is old enough now that some of the PCs it was on are being disposed of for one reason or another.


On a somewhat different topic but perhaps also of interest, I read recently that the current version of Siemens Step 7 is the last one that will work with versions of Windows older than Windows 2000. Any new Step 7 versions will only be rated for Windows 2000 or XP (or whatever is current at that time). Presumably their other software will follow this policy some time soon
as well.



--

************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

Hi Michael

Yes, I've been offered cast-offs for very reasonable prices. But, none have met the requirements for legally transferring Windows for sure. Very few people keep all the stuff except for big companies who fear the BSA. And I'll bet the volume stuff is specifically not transferable since I recall an article about people who bought out another company having to buy all new licenses. (they were not happy campers). I would buy some of these if I could justify more Linux boxes. But, I haven't discovered a way that you can buy or even be given a used Windows computer without buying a new license, unless you overwrite the drive to install Linux without even booting Windows. This is what I normally do. In fact, even donating a computer to charity will incur costs for them if they want to run Windows. I seem to recall Goodwill and/or The Salvation Army and schools running into this. Of course, most people probably wouldn't be very concerned, but, so far, I have only legal software in my possession and can speak from that position. I would be on very shaky ground if I actually stole their IP then criticized them about their licenses, UCITA, DMCA and other issues. If you want people to respect the GPL to the letter, you must respect even the silliest most ignored EULA.

Regards

cww

 

Hi Jiri

And if I agreed to shill for Microsoft and swear off Linux, they would probably _give_ me a copy. :^) Perhaps autographed :^P. I'm pragmatic enough to use the stuff if I must, but that's about as far as I can go in good conscience and I'm even a little ashamed about that. I would like to contribute as little as possible, yet remain legal. The RSLogix I can rationalize as directly applicable to skills I need to acquire, but I sure wish it ran on Linux. And I don't balk at using my employer's licenses, that money is water under the bridge and even if obnoxious, it's what I'm being paid to do. As it harms no one directly, I can cope.

The thing that strikes me the most is how easy it is if you are already in the collective, and how difficult it is if you wish to only do what is necessary without total abdication. And how few folks understand that.

I'll find an old consumer boxed set someplace for what I think it's worth, or perhaps not. Studying things Rockwell on my own is above the call. The cost is beyond reason for this individual. I've already paid dearly for my principles, no sense compromizing now. I was pretty gung ho about doing mainstream automation, but I think the company is going to have to foot the bill. And I'd still rather do it the better way.

Regards

cww

 

Hi Curt,

According to the EULA on my Windows 98 workstation (C:\windows\license.txt):

"...(j) Software Product Transfer.
You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE,....".

It also says that the software is only licensed for use on the hardware that it was purchased with. Presumably a stand alone retail version of
Windows 98 would have to have a different license.

To be strictly legal then you would need to read the license agreement on the PC before you buy to check if that particular version of Windows 98 is
transferable and under what conditions.

In addition you would need to make sure you also got the original Win98 installation disk, product key and the front couple of pages at least of
the Windows manual which includes the certificate of authenticity (ie the holographic image).

BTW, does anyone know where you can read a copy of the Windows XP EULA without actually purchasing a copy of XP.

Regards

Peter Whalley
Magenta Communications Pty Ltd
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: peter*no-spam*@magentacomm.com.au
delete *no-spam* before sending

 

Naturally, everyone should obey what they believe to be the laws of their country to the letter with regards to software licenses. I doubt though that few companies and fewer individuals could stand close scrutiny at all the software on all their computers which has arrived there by one means or another. I have read news stories where companies are finding this to be a very expensive proposition when they get caught by the software police.

However, to address your concern, I looked at the web site of a local computer dealer, and see they are still selling Windows 98, but only the "OEM
Edition". I don't recall ever seeing a consumer package full version of Windows 98 in a store so I'm not sure if it was ever actually sold that way. I am not sure what the actual differences may be for the OEM versus consumer licenses.

The price at $CND 155.00, is much cheaper than Windows XP (professional), but perhaps still more than you may be willing to pay. I would be surprised if a dealer near you didn't have something eqivalent.


************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

Hi Michael

I have in my hand, unopened of course, a Windows 95 package. Not the boxed edition, but the shrinkwrapped bundle of docs you get with a new PC. I can read the "Certificate of
Authenticity" but not the EULA. It says For distribution only with new PC hardware. Since there's no software with it, I think I can risk opening it and answering the question. Hmmm, "If the software product is not accompanied by a new
computer system, you may not use or copy the software product" Strange, that seems to conflict with your ability to transfer it. Later in the slim book, which is mostly licenses and terms for various countries, they do say you
can transfer it, with the computer which by then, would presumably be a used computer.

[email protected] wrote:
> ------------ Forwarded Message ------------
> From: Michael Griffin
>
> On April 1, 2003 01:56, Curt Wuollet wrote:
> <clip>
>
>>Of course, most people probably wouldn't be very concerned, but,
>>so far, I have only legal software in my possession and can speak from that
>>position. I would be on very shaky ground if I actually stole their IP then
>>criticized them about their licenses, UCITA, DMCA and other issues. If you
>>want people to respect the GPL to the letter, you must respect even the
>>silliest most ignored EULA.
>
> <clip>
>
> Naturally, everyone should obey what they believe to be the laws of their
> country to the letter with regards to software licenses. I doubt though that
> few companies and fewer individuals could stand close scrutiny at all the
> software on all their computers which has arrived there by one means or
> another. I have read news stories where companies are finding this to be a
> very expensive proposition when they get caught by the software police.

Most Linux users are entirely legal, except for those who dual-boot with Windows or DOS. With some MS versions, this is an explicit violation.
And yes, all those licenses and uncertainty about what's what represent a major liability for a company or even an individual. But, it must be
worth it :^)

> However, to address your concern, I looked at the web site of a local computer
> dealer, and see they are still selling Windows 98, but only the "OEM
> Edition". I don't recall ever seeing a consumer package full version of
> Windows 98 in a store so I'm not sure if it was ever actually sold that way.
> I am not sure what the actual differences may be for the OEM versus consumer
> licenses.
>
> The price at $CND 155.00, is much cheaper than Windows XP (professional), but
> perhaps still more than you may be willing to pay. I would be surprised if a
> dealer near you didn't have something eqivalent.

Perhaps, if I buy a new computer.

I think everyone is probably in violation of some part of MS licensing. If you use it.

Regards

cww

> ************************
> Michael Griffin
> London, Ont. Canada
> ************************

 

On April 2, 2003 21:48, Curt Wuollet wrote:
<clip>
> I have in my hand, unopened of course, a Windows 95 package.
> Not the boxed edition, but the shrinkwrapped bundle of docs
> you get with a new PC.
<clip>

This was a challenge. Not many places seem to have it (after all, who would want an old Windows?), but I tried Programmer's Paradise Canada, which I believe is the Canadian outlet for the American company of the same name.

http://www.pparadise.on.ca

They have Microsoft WIndows 98 Second Edition for CND$ 306.99. I'll let you do the conversion to US$ (or look up an American price yourself). I assume that at this price, this is the "consumer version" which is legal for a DIY to use. Their prices for other products look to be roughly the same as other people are charging (e.g. Microsoft XP Professional - CND$ 445.51). I assume you can order the same thing from a local equivalent.

There is evidently a solution, although a rather expensive one considering what you are getting for your money. (If those prices make you cringe, look at Microsoft Office XP Professional - $765.00)

> "If the software product is not accompanied by a new
> computer system, you may not use or copy the software
> product" Strange, that seems to conflict with your ability
> to transfer it. Later in the slim book, which is mostly
> licenses and terms for various countries, they do say you
> can transfer it, with the computer which by then, would
> presumably be a used computer.
<clip>

I looked at the Microsoft web site, but couldn't find a simple answer on who is allowed to buy the OEM version. I *think* you have to be a registered system builder, but anything I could find was rather vague on the details. A system builder would be someone who builds computers and then sells them. The "registered" bit seems to be something for Microsoft to keep track of who is
building and selling computers on a small scale. There is also some legal mumbo jumbo you have to agree to, including some rather frightening looking indemnification stuff. I wouldn't touch any of that without having a lawyer read it over first to find out what you are getting yourself into. It isn't anything to do with what you are trying to do at the moment, but it would perhaps be of interest to anyone who was building custom computer systems for industrial use.

> I think everyone is probably in violation of some part of
> MS licensing. If you use it.
<clip>

An interesting point though, is that quite a few people use no-name clone computers. Even quite a few clone "industrial" computers are built to order in small shops. Some system integrators build their own clones. Are all the people who build these computers entitled to use the OEM version of Windows? "Everybody" does it (except me, of course) because of the cost, but is it
legal? Can these systems stand scrutiny if the software police show up at your door and say they want to audit your license compliance?

I don't have answers for any of the above, which is just as well, since you shouldn't accept any legal advice you get over the internet.


************************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
************************

 

Hi Michael

The economics certainly are surprising after a long hiatus from the confines of shrinkwrap.

At first blush, it sounds like a pretty good deal for training. A Micrologix1000 and 10 point version of RSLogix for about $100.00. Add $50.00 for a cable. might be optional. Add perhaps $100.00 for the version of Windows currently being pushed. Add $300.00 for PC upgrades or a new "barebones" PC to be able to run same. Or perhaps $150.00 for a version of Windows that will run, albeit slowly, on the hardware I now use for Linux but, which might not run the RSLogix. Plus a Rat's Nest of legal liabilities. It kinda goes from a no brainer to a no gainer.

Now if there were a Linux version:

$100.00 for the Micrologix1000 and RSLogix. $50.00 for a cable. Still might be optional. < $10.00 for a legal CD set of _any_ version of Linux required. All will run well on my present hardware. I can trust that no Linux vendor will sue me, or even threaten to do so, regardless what I do or don't do including loading every machine I see from the non-authorized copy I get from CheapBytes.

Bang/buck would kinda favor the Linux, with no loss of revenue for AB/RS.

Of course, the economics would be similar if you had already paid the Microsoft Tax when you bought your PC and didn't have to "upgrade". But, for my hardware, you would have paid at least twice to be current. (And very slow) The great majority of the profits would flow to MS, not AB/RS.

Isn't that strange? Buy something at or near cost to AB/RS, give lots to MS to use it. I'd gladly pay $50.00 more for the Linux version and everyone would be much better off in the deal. You can't sneeze at a 50% increase in revenues with no increase in cost. (assuming R&D is amortized)

Are the AB/RS guys reading?

Regards

cww