Re: Building An Apple ][ Software Archive

["Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" <byron@asimov.ab.hsia.telus.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.