John Fields wrote...

Then what's this about:

QUOTE
So, it all appears to be a non-issue. Move along, nothing to see
here.

and who is "we"?

Clearly I have failed to move along just yet.

I agree with your point, James Sweet, but the issue isn't simply an
instrument owner copying an operating manual for his own use; remember,
he doesn't have one to copy! Instead, it's the right of someone who
has a manual (and likely no instrument) to copy it, for a fee, for
someone else. Clearly if that broad right isn't granted, this putative
someone won't have any motivation to provide the sought-after service
to this putative somebody else.

---
Clearly you don't understand the difference between a right and a
privilege.
---

Furthermore, our putative somebody else
may well not have an HP instrument either, and may merely wish to peruse
the designs of the masters for his own purposes. Perhaps he is writing
a book, or designing an improved version of the old instrument... We
consider these possibilities just to complicate matters, don't you see.

---
And how simple it would be, in order to sidestep problems, to obtain
permission from the owner of the copyright in the first place if the
copies are going to be used for commercial purposes.

Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Are you
trying to pick a fight? I have no argument with legal enforcement
of copyrights, as I've repeatedly stated, and HP seems to respond
favorable when people ask, as I also stated several times above.

But we've been generally exploring the *advisability* of an
instrument company unduly restricting the propagation of their
old manuals. It's merely an interesting hypothetical question.


--
Thanks,
- Win