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.finder at 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 <evan at 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.