25 Nov
2004
25 Nov
'04
12:59 p.m.
At 12:04 25/11/2004 -0800, you wrote:
The difference being that I was using individual document scans which did
not have Rich's information attached to them - presumably the material on
the CD in the original question does have his complete package, including
whatever promotional meterial he wishes to include. IMO (and it is just MO)
this is enough of an acknowlegement, as anyone who actually looks at it will
see this material. Once again, let me stress that this is MO.
Yeah, but it's such a GOOD quote (and very useful at times).
Regards,
Dave
--
dave04a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Vintage computing equipment collector.
http://www.parse.com/~ddunfield/museum/index.html
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Dave Dunfield wrote:
... Its you who keeps attaching Al's name to this discussion.... but
UNCLE - UNCLE - I hereby APOLOGIZE to any and all involved for having used
a bad example - The intent was to show how material being excluded from a CD
had prevented me from having easy access to it, with a personal observation
that doing so can deviate from often stated goals of making the material
available to everyone (please note: I am not suggesting that that any specific
person anywhere has or has not made this statement, and if anyone has in fact
made this statement, that it may or may not have been inline with the intent
of my bad example). Clearly I should not think up examples near the end of
a rant.
Also, since we are examining this particular bad example so closely, I should
also say that it may not have been in this list, it could have been in one of
the newsgroups (perhaps comp.os.cpm) - again, my error (at the time it didn't
seem an important detail as I was not mentioning names) - so lets amend the
orignal statement to "somebody somewhere at some time and for some reason (justified
or not), requested that their material be excluded from a DVD that I subsequently
obtained, and this means that I don't have ready access to that material due to
the fact that I can not download large items from the original sites, and that I
would have had access to it if the request to exclude it had not been made."
- can we live this this?
As noted above, this is not directed to a
particular person ... And I DO
have a great deal of respect for Al and others like him. And no dispute
that these people are preserving important documents. But, anyone who
takes the attitude "only to be distributed by download from my site" is
NOT making them available to EVERYONE - it prevents me from obtaining
much of the larger material (and doc scans tend to be large :-) No
matter how well information is preserved, it is of no benefit if it is
unobtainable.
You are looking at it from your own point of view. I'm not going to speak
for Al, but I'm sure he would want you to get what you need in whatever
way is most convenient for you. Al's gripe was with the person who was
making money off of his work and not making even a simple reference to Al
for making his "product" possible. Al did not take the attitude that you
are projecting. So again, I say show some respect by at least getting
your facts straight. Btw: I do have
some of Rich's scans in my Altair section, and I *DID*
contact him for permission, and he *IS* listed in my credits. I even
gave him some scans of docs he was missing during our correspondance.
And that took, what, a couple e-mails? No big deal. Since most of
Dynacomp's CD comes from, at most, 10 sources, it wouldn't take much
effort to at least let the people who created those sources know what he's
up to, or in the very least put a note of thanks on the disc. No, he
didn't do any of these, so shame on him. BUT - the
choice as to what to do is ultimately Rich's .. He asked our
opinion and I gave him mine. to quote Spock, he is free to "give it all
the consideration it is due".
Quoting fictional characters is...scary.