On 2015-08-21 20:31, Ian Finder wrote:
I should add- although I thought this was obvious, some people here take
pedantry to the next level:
*** I am strictly referring to software which is no longer generally available
commercially, which is the 98% case for the software for our machines. ****
Hmm, I didn't know that PDP-11 software was less than 2% of the software
under discussion here.
Johnny
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:26, Ian Finder <ian.fin...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think in response to sharing bits, a "better to ask for forgiveness rather than
permission" policy is as best as can be done, otherwise the hobby is completely
doomed.
I like how archive.org deals with it. If someone wants something taken down, do
it by all means!
Many current rights holders for this stuff may not even KNOW they are rights
holders, and for others, they may *want* to release something but cross
licensing issues with other companies (e.g. Licensed libraries) may prevent
them.
By the time we get permission to share this stuff, much of it will be
permanently lost.
So for now, I'll totally do illegal things. Because the law is shortsighted.
And if a rights holder asks me to stop, I'm happy to. And sometime when society
sees the value in all this, maybe we will get copyright reform.
Yar, mateys, I'll see you all on the high seas!
- Ian
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:13, Evan Koblentz <e...@snarc.net> wrote:
Wanted to add that my opinion of "freeing" manuals, etc. does not mean I am against
Bitsavers or Internet Archive -- work that's done the right way by professionals. My main gripe is
when an individual takes something that is still actively * for sale * (by the original developer,
no less) and the takes it upon themselves to give it away. Whether people or the courts decide it's
a "violation" or a crime, either way, it's wrong.
