Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

["Kelli Halliburton" <kelli217@crosswinds.not>]

Excuse me, systems like X-Drive have similar features; the administrators
have access to everything, the users have access to only that which they
have uploaded. Are there similar restrictions on an X-Drive account? How
about a Unix system with several users, each with their own home
directories? Remember that these accounts will have to be verified before
they are activated. Remember that whatever anyone does on that account
(should it be 'shared' or otherwise compromised) is traceable to the
individual whose account it is. And unless they can prove that their account
was hacked, they are responsible for whatever was done with that account.
Everyone with a working phone either has a phone number or is illegally
tapping into someone else's phone service. If someone uses a phone to commit
an illegal act, the phone company is not held responsible, the customer or
the phone phreaker is.
"Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" <byron@asimov.ab.hsia.telus.net> wrote in
message news:ivRz5.1275$24.586073@news0.telusplanet.net...
> Simple?  Not quite.  The problem with a "read only" archive is that it can
> still be interpreted as piracy.  It could be argued, for example, that the
> archive maintainers still have access to the duplicated software and are
> using it personally or for illegal distribution via other channels.  It
> could also be argued that people can share passwords/cookies in order to
> share software.
>
> The only way that this is going to work is if the database-archive is
> separate from the software.  If it is not, it *will* be shut down.
Several
> people have already demonstrated that archives like asimov and tarnover
can
> be shut down.  Heck, abuses of the tarnover archive forced the maintainer
> to disable FTP access.
>
> It does not make sense to maintain software with an archive promoting the
> preservation of software because, until copyright law grants us the
> privilage to do so, it endangers all of the information which we wish to
> save with it.
>
> Byron.
>
> Kelli Halliburton <kelli217@crosswinds.not> wrote:
> > Simple. Make the archive a write-only storage. No public access. Private
> > access limited only to the administrator(s). If someone submits a piece
of
> > software for cataloguing and archiving, they should be allowed to
retreive a
> > copy, but only of the software they submitted.
>
> > "Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" <wbdesnoy@ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
> > news:87Mx5.5268$m8.1070605@news1.telusplanet.net...
> >> The problem with an archive is that it has (a) been done before, and
> >> has been shut down; (b) represents some form of piracy, no matter how
> >> it is structured; and (c) has little historical significance.