Vintage Software Copyright

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2015-08-21 20:31, Ian Finder wrote:
> 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.