Well, it _is_ a meaningful term (albeit with a fuzzier than usual meaning); if people write of "abandonware" most readers will have at least a general idea of what is being referred to. It's true that (at least in most jursidictions) it does not have the legal status that people seem to act as though they thought it did, but, heck, that's true of a whole lot of terms in wide use, some of which even _do_ have relatively precise legal meanings - my own favourite of these is "public domain". And, unlike misused technical terms like "public domain", "abandonware" fills a gap in the language; there is - as far as I know - no other term nearly as good for its referent. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

On 3/30/2016 9:12 AM, ethan at 757.org wrote: C: online but MIRRORED

That's...yes, a peculiar definition, I would say. As I understand the term, the rights owner has to be nonexistent or to have proved unidentifiable or uncontactable (re which see below). The case where the owner clearly exists but demonstrably does not care about the software is, to my mind, a grey area. There is no single "copyright law". Not even the Berne convention is worldwide; practically everything about copyright is jurisdiction-specific, and I would be surprised if there weren't at least a few jurisdictions that did this (or didn't support copyright for software at all). That said, what you say is true in almost all jursidictions today. Yes. That. To my mind, this is the most critical missing piece of information. Since their definition does not mention it, I would be inclined to assume they haven't bothered; if so, I consider their abandonware definition to be sophistry, rigged in an attempt to make what they happen to feel like doing sound a bit less unjustified. Of course, what relation any of this bears to what _should_ be is a question for philosophy and much disagreement and has - or at least should have! - little-to-nothing with how people handle any software. /~\ The ASCII Mouse \ / Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML mouse at rodents-montreal.org / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

It cannot be overemphasized, that this is one of those situations wherein it seriously behooves the enthusiast community to sort this one out on our own, before some heavy-handed lawyer types - with big dollar signs in their eyes - sorts all of it for us.. because we all know how that would most likely go. Hint: Not to _anyone's_ advantage. Far as I see it, the vast majority of 'abandonware' in actual use, held in collections or at least offered for download, seems to consist of system ROMs, games and other entertainment titles from the home-computer / PC boom of the 80s and 90s. (As as side-note, it's of interest that arcade and home video game console ROMs, from roughly the same era, don't seem to fall into the abandonware class.. at least not so far as I have seen. Is this because the copyright holders are most often large, visible corporations? Perhaps, but it's also clear that the rights to a number of canonical abandonware titles, such as the Lucas Arts "SCUMM" point-and-click series, are likewise held by extant corporate concerns..) The seven-year rule is highly optimistic, even cheeky, as is the concept of an alleged right holder's refusal-to-acknowledge being deemed tacit permission to distribute the title(s). Ultimately, though, there must be a reasonable way to deal with all of this - and in a way that preserves both the rights of copyright holders / authors - while offering essentially free and open access to this large catalog of nostalgic and classic titles. I have a few ideas of my own.. but for now, I'd like to hear other members thoughts on the matter. Ultimately, it might necessarily involve bringing the rights holders and/or publishers over on to "our side". On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote:

Thank you. That was precisely my point. And this is why we need to be harsh about people who fling around those fake terms and misleading notions. Indeed. But I think it is pointless to expect a single answer, because circumstances vary. The only way a single answer could be reached is by laws (and even then it's only at best a single answer in any one country). But obviously it is not likely that if laws were passed on this subject that we would like the result. Yes, that's precisely correct. And doing so requires treating each individually as the rightful owner of something we're interested in, and treating that owner with respect rather than dismissal. Fred made that point quite clear also. paul

"Claiming that any MSFT product is "abandonware" is absurd. They DO very much care." You dang well know it. Do you even have any idea just how much of Windows 386 is still in the NT5 / Win10 codebase?! ;-) On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:

On 30 March 2016 at 18:58, Fred Cisin <cisin at xenosoft.com> wrote: No, not the same thing. I think the more important question is/are: Will the original author still *sell* it to you? Or, if it's a discontinued version of a still-current product, will it make it available to you in some way, possibly very cheaply or even free of charge? I think it is entirely reasonable to ask software vendors to make obsolete, discontinued, unsupported versions of products, versions which no longer run on current hardware or operating systems, available FOC. For instance, Microsoft offers Word 5.5 for DOS as a free download, as it is Y2K compliant, which no earlier versions were. For decades, Apple offered MacOS 7.5.5 this way, for instance. Actually, many vendors will not do this. If they don't, if they no longer even possess the product in any form, then I do think it's fair enough that others offer the service. I own real, licensed copies of OS/2 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, 4.0 and 4.5. However, due to the age and location of the media, and the fact that my current laptop and desktop machines do not possess optical drives, nor any place to fit optical drives, let alone floppy drives, it's considerably more convenient to download these ancient OSes and run them in VMs than it is to use my actual originals. I am thus legally licensed to use them. I own them. I am not licensed to run CCP/M or CDOS, although I worked with these OSes in my first 2 jobs, back on the Isle of Man at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s. I am curious to see if I can get them running today. I cannot legally obtain them; Digital Research no longer exists. So, again, I think downloading an old one is legit. Many companies would, I think, happily block distribution of old versions, on the bases of protection of trade. I do not own Microsoft Office 365, nor Office 2013, 2010 or 2007, as I hate the new UI. I do not even like Office 2003 or XP as much as I liked older versions. I do own Office 2000 and 1997, though. So I run a downloaded copy of Word 97, under WINE. It understands the same file formats, is tiny and very fast even on my 2008-era laptop, as that machine is a decade newer than the kit it was designed for. I don't want any newer version, thanks; IMHO the product has degenerated since then. I legally own it. I have licences. So I download it, because I can and because Microsoft won't provide me with a copy of the version I prefer. Microsoft would prefer me to buy a new copy and then, perhaps, let me use my old media if I prefer. I don't want to. I own the version I want. As it happens, though, it's in a storage unit 1000 miles away, with an inconvenient sea in the way. So, I downloaded it. Am I admitting to scandalous software piracy? -- Liam Proven ? Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lproven at cix.co.uk ? GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lproven at hotmail.com ? Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) ? +420 702 829 053 (?R)

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote: For the most part, the companies whose software is on the site don't really seem to care. A few of the sites have been around 10+ years and rarely does anyone speak up, mostly just Nintendo. I know the guy who runs Winworld and he's not gotten any DMCA takedown notices on the site contents and to the best of my knowledge neither has BetaArchive who also has a fairly large archive.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote: And GCOS. It started in 1962 as GECOS (the General Electric Comprehensive Operating Supervisor), and has an active user base, including companies offering support services. -- Charles

On 3/30/2016 10:58 AM, Fred Cisin wrote: Dead ... That is Easy in the USA. Software can be re-written, now hardware DOC's are the problem. I pirate books because the places that sell or print or loan books believe anything after 3 years with computers is totally useless. FPGA's after 2 years are to be scrapped. Spent the last few days looking for a Oberon FPGA board,only 1 supplier has product. Ben.