Vintage Software Copyright

[Ian Finder]

I would hazard a guess, Johnny, that whatever PDP-11 software you're referring to is *indeed* well under 2% of the body of all the copyrighted software ever written for computers we consider "vintage."

But if you'd like to maintain your tunnel vision on your specific interests and cases, that's your prerogative.

This is an issue for all vintage computers.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:33, Johnny Billquist <bqt at update.uu.se> wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>