John Higginbotham &lt;higginbo(a)netpath.net&gt; wrote: So let me get this straight: on one hand, you're saying there's a bunch of people out there who like to play old computer games, but you think the software owners shouldn't be free to sell to that market because there's no gain in productivity or increase in "harm"? What about learning or enjoyment? I think this list proves there is some small level of demand for old stuff... and certainly game makers like Microsoft and Atari have done well by selling relatively inexpensive pre-made collections of either the exact old games or updated emulations. I'm stunned by the amount of software that has been collected and redistributed (largely illegally) for the very good software-based emulators for old computers. Many of these emulators have become commercial products, again proving there's a bit of profit left in old software. On the other hand, I agree with some of your sentiment - it would be nice if there was a more formalized, established and accepted method that antique computer collectors could secure the rights to redistribute software that the owners have in fact abandoned. For example, I've tried to track down the rights to the Terak computer, as described on my web page. Terak was sold to CalComp, then a Sanders company, which was later assimilated by Lockheed-Martin. Try to wind your way through that bureaucracy to find the long-time employee who *might* be able to track down those assets - if you could convince them of the good intent of your interest, and that they should take time out of their day to help you. Similarly, I tried to clarify the rights to UCSD Pascal's p-code system. The UCSD licensing agency has stated that the license is non-exclusive, but in reality they have only one licensee, Cabot Systems in the UK, who are actively trying to sell the P-System as an alternative to Java for set-top boxes and embedded applications. Ken Bowles, author of a well-known early book on Pascal and one of the original designers of the P-System, believes that at least the early versions should be public domain because they were developed by the university with government funds, or something like that. You can see the problem: as soon as you *ask* about the obscure software and claim there's hundreds of people interested in using it, someone sees dollar signs and doesn't want to simply give it away. Non-profit collectors feel they're a "good cause" and that they'd take really good care of the stuff, but there are collectors and publishers out there who do seek to make a profit. - John Jefferson Computer Museum <http://www.threedee.com/jcm>