17 Mar
2008
17 Mar
'08
5:06 p.m.
---------Original Message:
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:21:46 -0400
From: "Kelly Leavitt" <kelly at catcorner.org>
Subject: RE: S100 archive?
Does anyone recognize this archive as a mirror of
other spots?
http://maben.homeip.net:8217/static//S100/index.html
It seems to be connected to majzel.com, registered to a
Agata Majzel, Flat 22, 27 Hereford Road, London W2 4TQ.
- John
Seems like a case of
"My archive is bigger than your archive."
I see stuff in here from a lot of different archives and personal web sites.
Kelly
----------Reply:
Is this a problem or do you just like to belittle someone's hard work?
As a fellow Cromemco fan I happen to know Marcus, the person behind
that site (in Switzerland btw.) a little bit and I know for a fact that he has
spent an enormous amount of time and effort scanning and indexing material
that is not available elsewhere. Is there a problem with adding material that
*is* already available in order to make a section as complete as possible,
and to have it conveniently findable in an index? If any of the actual "owners"
of that material want to keep it to themselves and *THEIR* site, I'm sure
he would remove it.
I've also never known him to brag about it in any way, only to point to
his site on occasion when he runs across someone on a forum somewhere
looking for something that he has.
Since it's my own interest and in a very tiny part my contribution, I defy you to
find any one of many dozens of his 300+ Cromemco documents elsewhere,
unless they've been copied from his site. Compare it to bitsaver's Cromemco
collection for example (6 manuals at last count, although I don't in any way
mean to belittle Al's enormous effort), or even Harte's site which is one of the
better ones. That's not to mention the actual code and disk images which are
even rarer anywhere else, all a work constantly in progress.
It's comments like yours that make some people ask why the hell they
bother; I hope you don't have to grit your teeth one day and retrieve some
elusive boot disk or manual from his site...
And if you prefer to Google through the many fragmented and scattered
sources on the Internet, by all means do do.
m
17 Mar
17 Mar
5:25 p.m.
At 03:06 PM 3/17/2008, M H Stein wrote:
It's comments like yours that make some people ask
why the hell they
bother; I hope you don't have to grit your teeth one day and retrieve some
elusive boot disk or manual from his site...
I didn't criticize it, and neither did Kelly as far as I saw.
I wanted to point it out to the group and determine whether it
was indeed a new trove or not. The site itself doesn't tell me
whether it's copied from elsewhere or not. That would make it
more useful and descriptive, wouldn't it?
The "World's Largest Ball of Saved Twine Bits" approach doesn't tell me
much.
If you take something from elsewhere, why not attribute? If you made
something yourself, why not tell me it's unique?
- John
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1331 - Release Date: 3/16/2008 10:34 AM
18 Mar
18 Mar
2:46 p.m.
The "World's Largest Ball of Saved Twine
Bits" approach doesn't tell me
much.
If you take something from elsewhere, why not attribute? If you made
something yourself, why not tell me it's unique?
I have some harsh words for that, but they do fit on this subject:
Information is free.
I have many articles that turned around the world. Most of then doesn't
have my name anymore. Some sites just copied, ipsis leteris. Some sites
changed my name to Alex or Al. Some said I allowed them to publish on their
sites. And some are credited to another name.
But who cares?
I did many scans, published original circuits, many how-tos, thousands
of photos and things maybe never seen. They are around the world. And so
what? My objective was to make information free, to amuse people with new
things and everyone get happy. Do you think someone will make a list like:
file.pdf 102941 bytes copied from bitsavers
file2.pdf 102384 bytes copied from sellam ismail
file3.pdf 10938 bytes copied from msx.org who copied from speccy.org
who copied from tabajara labs
Hey people, why do you do the work? For personal promotion or to help
people like you who needed this info sometime and didn't found it?
Be cool...All my info is free and you can copy it however you want.
Thanks if you keep my name near it. Thanks if not, but you spreaded the
information for free.
Wanna see me mad? Charge ANYTHING for my free info. You'll have a very
mad man looking for you
Greetings from Brazil
Alexandre
http://www.tabajara-labs.com.br
6:39 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Alexandre Souza wrote:
things and everyone get happy. Do you think someone
will make a list like:
file.pdf 102941 bytes copied from bitsavers
file2.pdf 102384 bytes copied from sellam ismail
file3.pdf 10938 bytes copied from msx.org who copied from speccy.org
who copied from tabajara labs
I would contribute to help such a site.
Hey people, why do you do the work? For personal
promotion or to help
people like you who needed this info sometime and didn't found it?
"The purpose of the internet is for the free sharing and exchange of other
people's intellectual property." ?
Wanna see me mad? Charge ANYTHING for my free
info. You'll have a very
mad man looking for you
THAT is a good argument for attribution and copyright.
If you own the copyright, then YOU ('sposedly) control it and can make it
free and prevent others from charging for it.
If there is no attribution and copyright, then you have NO control over
whether somebody else can charge for it. That is one reason why Richard
Stallman has draconian copyright provisions. (You may not use ANYTHING of
his if you include it in ANYTHING that will be sold - you may not copy one
of his subroutines into a commercial product.)
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
6:54 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
"The purpose of the internet is for the free
sharing and exchange of
other people's intellectual property." ?
To whom should you attribute? The corporation that originally produced
the work or whoever scanned it? Even if you make use of (for example)
DEC's (possibly limited) permission to make copies or even if you've
gone so far as to ask for permission to make copies, I very much doubt
that the originators of many of the copies on the net could claim any
kind of ownership.
I'd be happy with Al's suggestion of a top level MD5 file. That
might save me from a large download of something I've already
got, possibly from elsewhere, possibly under a different name.
If there is no attribution and copyright, then you
have NO control
over whether somebody else can charge for it. That is one reason why
Richard Stallman has draconian copyright provisions. (You may not
use ANYTHING of his if you include it in ANYTHING that will be sold -
you may not copy one of his subroutines into a commercial product.)
If RMS has some personal licence that is not the GPL, then you may
be right. But if you mean the GPL, then you are wrong. I most certainly
can charge for it and I can incorporate it into my software. I just have
to
comply with the terms of the licence (mostly making _all_ the sources
available).
If you want a "you can look and use but you cannot charge" licence
then you'll have to find another one (or make one up).
Antonio
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date:
17/03/2008 10:48
7:16 p.m.
> "The purpose of the internet is for the free
sharing and exchange of
> other people's intellectual property." ?
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Antonio Carlini wrote:
To whom should you attribute? The corporation that
originally produced
the work or whoever scanned it? Even if you make use of (for example)
yes, the "true" ownership is often not the current availability.
Occasionally, a company will go ahead and explicitly move stuff to public
domain. Unfortunately, many will never do that, and a significant part of
what is available to us relies on the owner of the copyright not giving a
shit. There is a popular [FALSE] myth that "abandonware" automagically
becomes public domain.
If I give somebody a copy of PC-DOS 1.00, then I rely on IBM and Microsoft
not caring about the infringement.
On the other hand, I have had to deal with people copying and selling
copies of commercial software that I was still trying to pay the bills
with.
If RMS has some personal licence that is not the GPL,
then you may
be right. But if you mean the GPL, then you are wrong. I most certainly
can charge for it and I can incorporate it into my software. I just have
to
comply with the terms of the licence (mostly making _all_ the sources
available).
My mistake, I was thinking in terms of his policies (and rants) in the
1980s.
Did somebody eventually knock some sense into him?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
7:27 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
yes, the "true" ownership is often not the
current availability.
Occasionally, a company will go ahead and explicitly move stuff to public
domain. Unfortunately, many will never do that, and a significant part of
what is available to us relies on the owner of the copyright not giving a
shit. There is a popular [FALSE] myth that "abandonware" automagically
becomes public domain.
But if it is TRUE abandonware would you have a copywrite if you have no company?
-
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
10:37 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:27:00 -0600, woodelf wrote:
Fred Cisin wrote:
> yes, the "true" ownership is often not
the current availability.
> Occasionally, a company will go ahead and explicitly move stuff to public
> domain. Unfortunately, many will never do that, and a significant part of
> what is available to us relies on the owner of the copyright not giving a
> shit. There is a popular [FALSE] myth that "abandonware" automagically
> becomes public domain.
But if it is TRUE abandonware would you have a
copywrite if you have no company?
-
> Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
In the case of very hard to prove "true" abondonware, the rights reverts back to
the author, photographer
or artist of the origional work. The only person who has any residual claim is the
origional creator.
The idea that someone thinks they have a claim to an unauthorized scan or copy is
delusional and not
founded in fact or for that matter any law I am aware of.
FYI: Here in the US copyright is implied on everything published unless stated othewise.
The silly (c) copyright statement is not necessary, recomended but not required.
Bob
11 p.m.
>Fred Cisin wrote:
>But if it is TRUE abandonware would you have a copywrite if you have no company?
I did NOT write that.
I have seen way too many assholes declare that stuff was "abandonware" and
in the public domain, because they didn't know how or where to contact the
original author. Hint: lack of results from a single Google query is
insufficient to prove that nobody claims ownership.
FYI: Here in the US copyright is implied on everything
published unless stated othewise.
The silly (c) copyright statement is not necessary, recomended but not required.
Since the USA joined the Berne convention.
Prior to that, "the silly (c) copyright statement" was ESSENTIAL.
That played a significant role in the Intel V NEC case.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:18 p.m.
I did NOT write that.
Woodelf did.
I have seen way too many assholes declare that stuff
was "abandonware" and
in the public domain, because they didn't know how or where to contact the
original author. Hint: lack of results from a single Google query is
insufficient to prove that nobody claims ownership.
I was thinking of a case, but no real ones come to mind since the example
companies are still around. The example I was thinking of was a custom
DOS for a 8088 machine I had got about 1996. That problem is I got some
floppies but no DOS system disk. I ended tossing the machine, since I
could not get a DOS system disk for formating floppies and stuff.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com
11:52 p.m.
On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, woodelf wrote:
I was thinking of a case, but no real ones come to
mind since the example
companies are still around. The example I was thinking of was a custom
DOS for a 8088 machine I had got about 1996. That problem is I got some
floppies but no DOS system disk. I ended tossing the machine, since I
could not get a DOS system disk for formating floppies and stuff.
I had one model 1 TRS-80 with Omikron CP/M and hardware mods.
I had another one, with Parasitic Engineering CP/M and hardware mods.
But, I had no CP/M system disk for the Parasitic Engineering system. I
located Howard Fullmer of the defunct Parasitic Engineering (he went to
Morrow) He would not give me a system disk unless I purchased the entire
retail package (including the hardware mods). His legal right.
Intellectual property can be transferred to another owner, or even
inherited. When George Morrow died, his estate owned his intellectual
property, including "Quotations from Chairman Morrow". Fortunately, his
relatives released "quotations" into public domain.
7:30 p.m.
Fred Cisin wrote:
Occasionally, a company will go ahead and explicitly
move stuff to
public domain.
That would be once in a blue moon :-)
Unfortunately, many will never do
that, and a
The majority!
significant part of what is available to us relies on
the owner of
the copyright not giving a shit.
This is what we mostly rely on.
At least some (like Agilent) seem to make a significant chunk
of stuff available and even accept contributions. I'm not sure
how they'd view redistribution, but for as long as their FTP site
is up, that's probably not an issue.
My mistake, I was thinking in terms of his policies
(and rants) in the
1980s.
IIRC his rants were that it should all be free (as in beer) ... I don't
recall
him ever saying that charging for stuff was bad, bad was just refusing
to let
someone else give away for free that for which you wished to charge.
Did somebody eventually knock some sense into him?
Apparently not :-)
Antonio
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1332 - Release Date:
17/03/2008 10:48
11:18 p.m.
But if you mean the GPL, then [...] I most certainly
can charge for
it and I can incorporate it into my software. I just have to comply
with the terms of the licence (mostly making _all_ the sources
available).
For GPL v1 and v2, yes. For v3, I'd hazard the opinion that nobody
except the FSF's lawyers (and probably not even them, until some case
law is made) knows what is permitted; the thing is a Byzantine morass,
and I strongly recommend anyone contemplating doing anything it affects
actually read it rather than just assuming it's an evolutionary step
from GPLv2.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
12:49 a.m.
From: dm561 at torfree.net
---------Original Message:
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 21:21:46 -0400
From: "Kelly Leavitt"
Subject: RE: S100 archive?
Hi
I think you miss the point. It is consider proper to credit the sources
of such information. The work he has done is great and he has done
it very well. There is just no mention of where he aquired much
of it.
Dwight
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!?Play the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
Does anyone recognize this archive as a mirror of
other spots?
http://maben.homeip.net:8217/static//S100/index.html
It seems to be connected to majzel.com, registered to a
Agata Majzel, Flat 22, 27 Hereford Road, London W2 4TQ.
- John
Seems like a case of
"My archive is bigger than your archive."
I see stuff in here from a lot of different archives and personal web sites.
Kelly
----------Reply:
Is this a problem or do you just like to belittle someone's hard work?
5969
days inactive
5971
days old
13 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
alexandre-listas＠e-secure.com.br -
arcarlini＠iee.org -
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
caveguy＠sbcglobal.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dkelvey＠hotmail.com -
dm561＠torfree.net -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA