15 Nov
2015
15 Nov
'15
11:20 a.m.
On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Peter Cetinski <pete
at pski.net> wrote:
Yes, I agree with that.
FWIW, another exmaple of "approach 1" is the PLATO system at cyber1.org.
paul
On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Paul Koning
<paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote:
The ?second? approach is what we are using for the TRS-80 Model II archive that Mark
mentioned (https://github.com/pski/model2archive
<https://github.com/pski/model2archive>). While we have received explicit
permission from copyright owners that we can determine, such as Scott Adams for his Model
II versions of the adventure games, the rest is made available until someone says ?please
take this down because I own it and don?t want it distributed?. It seems to be the best
balanced approach for rescuing the software from oblivion while also respecting authorship
of no longer commercially available software. On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
There are a lot of diffent ways to approach copyright questions.
The second is to use what is readily available but stop when told to. This is what
google seems to do; it also seems to be the bitsavers approach.
...
Personally? I think the rightest way is to eliminiate the legal
fiction called "intellectual property", as a good-sounding experiment
that has failed. It is not producing the effects it was put in place
to produce and it is producing a lot of other, ill, effects.
Agree. I think the whole concept of intellectual property is weird. Calling some thought
in your head a "property" have strange implications. If I say some words that
makes you think of something, can I then make you violate my intellectual property? When
if you thought of the same idea independently? How did you violate my intellectual
property in that case?