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. **** 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.
