Re: New Apple II SuperSite Online

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

ICS Softy writes ...
> 
> >Strange... I put up a site for free, to promote the apple, and go as
> >far as ASKING what shouldnt be on there (even in a PERSONAL message to
> >you asking for your help), and you shun my efforts, and call me a
> >pirate.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> 
> Mike...
> 
> The story goes back several years.  But it essentially started with Dr. Tom
> doing some sector editing to make someone else's work out as his own.

     A reasonably fair sounding presentation, except that it states as fact
something which has been looked into, debunked, and shown to be, very likely, not
merely a misunderstanding but rather an intentional lie.

     When it comes to Dr. Tom and the Apple II one must deal with a basic truth:
there are a few wackos willing to go to extremes to harm Tom's reputation any way
they can. I saw this first hand while editing II Alive.

     After publishing a pair of very nice Apple II news and historical articles by
Tom in our Summer 1996 issue, we received three or four hate-filled letters
attacking Tom and making various threats directed at the magazine. Interestingly,
not one of the letters was addressed to an editor or to the magazine-- all were
addressed to Scantron's Product Manager. (Which just shows that Tom's enemies are
not especially bright about combining their efforts.)

     Over the years one finds many such attacks, always from the same small bunch
of wreckers and trouble makers. Some of these guys have even gone to the expense
and bother of setting up sites devoted to nothing but bashing Tom.

     Even when one of this bunch offers a (very rare) compliment to Tom for some
achievement, it is for the purpose of making the belittling comments which follow
more believable. Just recently, one of the 'usual suspects' said something nice
about Tom's successful effort to have Merlin reclassified for free distributed.
This was followed by language implying that this was the extent of Tom's
successes. Aside from the fact that all of Glen Bredon's software creations are
included, Tom has been personally responsible for many other reclassifications.



> A lot of
> developers were extremely offended by that, and even though Dr. Tom has been
> pretty much on the up and up in recent times, they haven't forgotten it.  Nor I
> doubt they will ever forgive him for it, or anyone who associates themselves
> with him.
>

     You are talking about a small, generally inactive, group. Most of today's
many developers are on very good terms with Tom. How your developers and
ex-developers deal with their personal problems is their business. Their past
contributions to II computing will still be appreciated.

 

> That aside, regarding your file libraries, the issue within this group has
> generally been divided into two camps.  One camp is of the opinion that
> anything that's not in production is fair game and should be available to
> anyone until the copyright holder says to pull it.  The other one's opinion is
> that nothing should be posted until the author or copyright holder gives
> permission first.
>

     Fairly accurate. The usage of "fair game" is an error. It implies an attitude
which, generally, vanished years ago with the end of the BBS "Pirate Board" era.
Today, site managers and other users view oldie commercial software as a trust. 

     So long as distribution seems likely to benefit the rights owner or, at
least, do no harm, site managers believe that freely distributing the software to
the users for whom it was intended is the right thing to do. 



> Both groups are committed (in their own way) to keeping the Apple II alive and
> .  The difference is the first group doesn't really care how they do it (or who
> they step on), and the latter group cares enough (and patient enough) to take
> all the proper steps first.
 ....

     The idea that nothing should be made available without the copyright owner's
express, verifiable permission has been discussed at length many times in the
past. Whatever ones stand on most of the issues involved, the fact is that, after
years of "reclassification" efforts, only a minuscule portion of old, out-of-print
commercial software has been officially reclassified for free distribution. Anyone
who doubts this need only compare the reclassified listing on Treasure Chest with
listings on sites like Asimov, 'Fairway, TikTok, White Rabbit, or Mike's new site.

     There is seldom any good reason for a rights owner to officially agree to
reclassification. The owner knows that (unless he/she objects) the software will
be distributed anyway; and, with no official agreement, there is no need to give
up or weaken ownership rights and no need for any legal work to change status. The
reasonable expectation is that most software will never be reclassified via owner
permission.

     In fact, accepting the 'official permission only' position means eliminating
access to most old commercial software. This may be of no concern to a few
persons. It is very much a concern to new users and any other user who wishes to
see II computing continue to grow.

     Free distribution of old commercial software with no real market value
violates no law. Since the distribution benefits users as well as rights owners,
the truly "caring" thing to do is to continue the distribution.



Rubywand