 |
|
 |
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:39:15 -0400, "Jim Mack" <...@mdxi.nospam.com
Rather than PD, check out http://www.creativecommons.org
One of the varieties of license available will suit almost any need,
and allow the owner to specify just what may be freely done with the
software, and what uses are restricted.
--
Jim Mack
Twisted tees at http://www.cafepress.com/2050inc
"We sew confusion"
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:46:13 +0200, "Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <...@planet.nl
Those car parts are done by enthousiasts.
Nobody stops you to invest how you can do that with software, but mailing
under a synonym is mostly not the best start.
jmo
Cor
"MM" <...@4ax.com...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:13:26 -0400, "mayayana" <...@rcnXX.com
u c h s o f t w a r e
s o m e o f t h e
W o u l d n ' t t h a t b e s o r t o f l i k e s a y i n g
t h a t i f
s o m e o n e s t o p s t r y i n g t o s e l l t h e i r b o o k
t h e n
e v e r y o n e c a n h a v e a c o p y f o r f r e e , r e g a
r d l e s s
o f w h e t h e r c o p y r i g h t h a s e x p i r e d ? I t m
a y n o t b e
a n u n r e a s o n a b l e i d e a , b u t i t ' s b a s i c a l
l y s o c i a l i s t .
M a n y y e a r s a g o I l i v e d f o r a w h i l e i n
J a m a i c a .
A t t h e t i m e t h e y h a d a l a w t h e r e t h a t i
f a l a n d o w n e r
d i d n o t h a r v e s t h i s / h e r e d i b l e p r o d u c e
( f r u i t ,
c o c o n u t s , e t c . ) t h e n o t h e r s w e r e f r e e
t o t a k e i t .
I t h o u g h t t h a t m a d e a l o t o f s e n s e . M a
n y p o o r
p e o p l e w e r e h e l p e d a n d t h e l o c a l f r u i t
d i d n ' t g o
t o w a s t e . B u t t h a t ' s a r a d i c a l a p p r o a c h
f r o m t h e
p o i n t o f v i e w o f E u r o p e a n q u a s i - d e m o c r
a c y o r t h e
c u r r e n t A m e r i c a n s y s t e m o f n o m i n a l l y c i
v i l i z e d
p l u t o c r a c y . W o u l d y o u f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e
a b o u t
p e o p l e c o m i n g a n d t a k i n g a n y p r o p e r t y o
r b e l o n g i n g s
o f y o u r ' s t h a t y o u w e r e n ' t u s i n g ?
O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , d o e s t h a t m e a n t
h a t S P O T
w a t c h e s a n d Z u n e s w i l l n o w b e f r e e s i n c
e n o b o d y
w a n t s t o b u y t h e m ? I m i g h t b e i n t e r e s t e
d i n h a v i n g
a p a p e r w e i g h t t h a t g i v e s m e w e a t h e r r e p
o r t s . : )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 22:47:11 +0100, MM <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:13:26 -0400, "mayayana" <...@rcnXX.comwrote:
There is, of course, Project Gutenberg, which permits the legal
downloading of much valuable stuff from history.
But, anyway, you can't compare software to books, since you cannot
simply replicate a book! Sure, you could photocopy one, but that's not
the same as downloading a software program. In any case, I am not
talking about contravening copyright. The kind of software I am
talking about is simply no longer marketed, yet is often perfectly
accepable software for a purpose. Recall what excellent move Mabry
made with their MIDI Controls package: They placed it in the public
domain!
http://home.brisnet.org.au/~mlevoi/midi.html
Why shouldn't that method work for ALL legacy software?
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:20:41 -0400, "mayayana" <...@rcnXX.com
That's fine if they want to do it. I got the impression
from your first post that you thought it should be imposed
for the public good.
I've often thought about that in regard to my own software,
and I don't really have a definite position. If I give up trying
to sell it I could just give it away. But is that fair to the people
who bought it? Maybe I'd just tell the people who bought it
that they're free to give it away -- or not. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:20:19 +0100, MM <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:20:41 -0400, "mayayana" <...@rcnXX.comwrote:
What is fair, though? If I buy a classic car in restored condition
today I will pay maybe five or ten times what it cost when new. So is
this unfair to the original owner? If he had kept the car all this
time he could have made a considerable investment. But he got his
money's worth from his purchase because he bought it as a means of
transport - and maybe something to impress the Jones next door - and
it fulfilled that role for, say, 20 years admirably. He's satisfied. I
doubt you'd find one original owner anywhere who would be miffed about
seeing his first car from fifty years ago now in an advert at some
amazing price.
If you gave up selling your software and placed it into the public
domain, how would that affect existing users? Assume they bought the
product to make money by selling *their* software, nothing is stopping
them from continuing to do so henceforth! Just because new users, who
wouldn't otherwise be able to acquire the software, can now start
using it, the software already bought and paid for will just carry on
working and delivering sales for the purchasers/programmers concerned.
I can see only benefits. You have nothing to lose as you would have
bowed out from the business. In fact, you probably would have a lot to
gain through the kudos of doing something deemed socially acceptable
that also helps the march of technology. Existing owners have nothing
to lose, since they have already amortized their purchase many times
over. No one loses, everyone potentially gains.
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:27:23 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
...
Because some holders of the copyright haven't chosen to do so.
Perhaps it's been deliberate, perhaps it's been simply didn't think of
it. But, in the end, it's their decision to make.
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:24:19 +0100, MM <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:27:23 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
Maybe a bit more encouragement from new would-be consumers like me
might be useful! What actual benefit is derived - by anyone - by
keeping such legacy software under lock and key for ever more?
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:33:03 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
...
Encouragement to whom????
If the business entity has gone bankrupt the last thing on their minds
while trying to a) save the business, and b) save their personal
livelihood it's highly unlikely the first thing on their priority list
is "oh, and we have to be sure to GPL the code base". Not likely
scenario in the real world.
In the only real instance of which I had any specific interest (Watcom
C/C++ and Fortran compilers) the company stayed in business at the time,
merely decided to no longer market/improve the compilers. Being as they
weren't in terrible financial straits they did agree to and put in quite
a fair amount of effort to see that it actually happened to allow them
to be transferred to OpenWatcom.org. But, it wasn't free by any means
and if they had gone bankrupt instead undoubtedly wouldn't have been
possible.
You're basically asking for an idealized result that simply isn't
feasible in the real world however nice it might be in theory. For
whatever product it was you started off about, you don't even know what
the status of the code base was at the time. For all you know, it was
full of intellectual property of a half-dozen individuals, none of whom
had any connection to each other other than to the business entity to
whom they contracted. It may not have been in the power of the
corporate body to have granted GPL on that code if they had desired to.
It can be far more complicated legal situation than you can imagine --
as in the OW case, it took months of legal wrangling and effort to
separate out proprietary pieces that Watcom could then release.
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:20:27 +0100, MM <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:33:03 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
How is intellectual property affected by releasing the software for
public use? Whatever provisos applied when the software was being
marketed commercially would still apply, e.g. reverse engineering not
permissible and so on. I am not talking about releasing the source
code, but merely the final product. If *I* had an intellectual
property interest in the software I'd far rather it be *utilised* than
allowed to wither on the vine. What benefit to me as the owner of some
intellectual property is gained by not letting the software be used by
all who want to? Again, I am likely to gain more kudos from having the
s/w placed in the public domain and used than from having it,
effectively, scrapped.
As for the panic situation as a company is forced to, or simply
decides to, close, the CEO doesn't have to release the product(s) as
legacy items immediately. Just sometime later, maybe a year or so,
after the initial panic has died down.
Take the Mabry product line, for example. Mabry marketed LOADS of
products! They had a solution for just about anything. But apart from
the MIDI pack, which they kindly placed under GPL, all the other
useful stuff is simply no longer available, gone, and I think that is
a very great shame considering the thousands of man hours of effort
put into the development of all that software.
I don't know whether you're from the UK, but in days of yore many
successful business men (in those days they were all men) built
libraries, swimming pools, even whole housing estates for the local
community as a way of showing their commitment to that community, and
some of the names are still remembered today, a hundred years or more
later.
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:37:02 -0400, "Jim Mack" <...@mdxi.nospam.com
Nope. Releasing to the public domain means you no longer have any
control over any aspect of the product. "Copyrighted but free" is the
closest to what you're describing. Public domain has a specific legal
meaning and cannot co-exist with ownership.
This is the reason Creative Commons was born, as I mentioned upthread.
http://www.creativecommons.org even has a license generator that takes your
specs and outputs a license suited to your wishes.
--
Jim Mack
Twisted tees at http://www.cafepress.com/2050inc
"We sew confusion"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:32:53 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
...
All depends on what the terms of the applicable agreements in place.
Could be none, could be there were specific provisions made. One
doesn't know and can't presume.
...
Well, you're allowed to do whatever you wish but you don't have any call
for anybody else and to expect in all instances others to do what you
might do is simply an absurd expectation.
At that point, there is may well/probably isn't anything there anyway
and the people involved are doing something else to make a
living...you're in a fairyland, basically.
...
And many didn't... :)
Philanthropy is great, but it can't be demanded.
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:15:12 +0100, MM <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:32:53 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
Maybe it's just never occurred to many ex-software
developers/companies. Maybe the little acorn I'm planting will grow
into a mighty oak in fifty years. Imagine 50 years hence and
schoolchildren wanting to experience the software of today. Well, they
won't be able to, will they?
Why are you so negative about this proposal? I really do not
comprehend the disadvantages you appear to see everywhere. Is it that
you just don't want people to have anything for free?
Again, too much negativity to no purpose! Rather than celebrate the
ones who did, you appear to applaud the ones who didn't.
But even Bill Gates has discovered the "philanthropy business" as he
once referred to it, so he has seen the light, brother!
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:35:04 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
...
Simply realistic.
There are as many reasons for code to die as there are companies and
people who wrote it.
It's only unrealistic to expect the real difficulties inherent in the
process you envision preventing it from becoming extremely widespread.
Despite your wishes, many of these are real legal and/or financial
issues that can't just be wished weren't there.
If there's a great untapped market no longer being fulfilled as you seem
to think, looks like should an opportunity waiting for you to be the
niche provider...
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:48:29 +0100, MM <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:35:04 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
It could well be something for the charities to become interested in.
They could contact the copyright holders where possible and end up
receiving donations to benefit sick children in Africa. I'd willingly
donate a sum of money to acquire certain old software legally and I
expect very many others would do as well.
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 11:16:50 -0500, dpb <...@non.net
...
Have at it. All it takes is filing some paperwork and you're a 501(c)3.
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:57:09 -0400, "Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet
"MM" <...@4ax.com...
I purchased an obsolete version of Videosoft's Elastic used from a fellow in
Australia, who wanted all the money to go to Shark Tank Research (for cystic
fibrosis), so paid by way of a contribution to them. We both felt good, and
I go (at least somewhat legally) the old, obsolete software.
--
Regards,
Rick Raisley
heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:54:46 +0100, MM <...@yahoo.co.uk
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:57:09 -0400, "Rick Raisley"
<heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet
Ah, yes! Videosoft's products were the ones we used extensively at the
company I worked for up until 2001. Videosoft was a good company and
produced some really nice and well-documented tools. More than once I
discovered a bug, emailed support and got a fix by email the next day.
Alternatively, if it wasn't an actual bug but due to the way I was
using the control, they explained in detail how to work around the
problem. The FAQ was good, too, as I recall.
MM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:55:45 -0700, Bob O`Bob <...@yahoogroups.com
I concur ... and also from the /inside/...
It was very well done stuff, making my stint there in the tech support
realm a relative breeze. It's just barely possible that I wrote some
of the work-around code which the first-line techs sent to you.
Bob
--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:21:58 -0400, "Rick Raisley" <heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-Tnet
I still use VideoElastics on my programs today. While a lot of the neat
features back then (automatic 3D effects, etc.) aren't necessary, I love not
having to have separate labels for each control's caption, but using the Tag
property instead, and having the Elastic create them. To my knowledge, there
is not a current/modern control that does that. And the flexibility of the
Elastic, looking like anything from a frame to a Button, is great. Likewise,
I still use the VSTab control, as it works like a "real" tab in the design
mode.
Anyone know of a replacement? The Elastics do tend to flicker some, and I'd
like to be ready.
--
Regards,
Rick Raisley
heavymetal-A-T-bellsouth-D-O-T-net
"Bob O`Bob" <...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|