Re: the status of Apple system software & vogon hypocrisy

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Jeff Blakeney writes ...
> 
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 03:28:50 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > So, Bernie will not need to be scrapped because users are prohibited
> > from downloading or copyting IIgs ROM code. Mike, Joe, the guys at
> > MyEsource, ..., and other developers selling software do not need to
> > be concerned, either. The same goes for net sites which offer Apple's
> > system software for free download.
> 
> There is a world of difference between someone who has a license that
> hasn't been canceled distributing Apple's system software and someone
> who doesn't have a license at all distributing Apple's system
> software.
 ....

     Except for one thing: Apple II system software is not licensed. Nobody
has a valid license to distribute Apple II system software.

     Apple would not send out cancellation notices any more than they would
clamp down on distribution of their IIgs ROM, insist that A2 Appleworks,
System 6.0.1, etc. be delisted from archives, or post a blanket cease and
desist declaration on Csa2.

     Should anyone wish to insist that he/she has a valid license, all that
is necessary to prove it is to contact Apple and obtain a verification email
stating that he/she has a valid license to distribute Apple II system
software.

     Since no such license exists, contacting Apple would be pretty dumb. The
questioner could, as a result, receive an official cancellation notice which
would squash any future claim about not knowing his/her license is worthless.

     For now, unless they should become involved in this discussion, holders
of defunct licenses have plausible deniability: "I never received a
cancellation notice and didn't know my license was invalid".

     In the absence of a declaration from Apple stating that Apple II system
software may be freely distributed, any large scale or commercial
distribution is, technically, a copyright "violation", or, if you like, a
case of 'taking liberties' with Apple property.


> 
> If Apple does cancel the license that some people have, then they will
> stop distributing Apple's system software because it will no longer be
> legal for them to do so.

     It is not "legal" (by your definition) now. You can go to Apple's site
and discover without much trouble that "Apple II system software is not
licensed". What that means is this: "Apple II system software is not
licensed".


> 
> It has nothing to do with whether Apple will take action or not.

     Easy to say ... unless Apple decides to take action.


> 
> As to ROM code, we already know that it is a gray area but there is
> absolutely no need for it to be distributed by anyone.  People who
> don't own a specific model of Apple II don't have any legal right to
> use the ROM code from that model.  If they do own that model then they
> might be legally okay to use a ROM image with their emulator (this is
> the gray area noted above).

     What nonsense! There is nothing "gray" about Apple's ROM copyrights.
Lacking official verifiable permission from Apple, distributing it must be
viewed as a copyright violation.

     As for machine ownership conveying the right to copy, transfer, and/or
use the ROM code in some other machine-- not so. Such uses are explicitly
prohibited and constitute a well established class of copyright violation.
You own the ROM chip, _not_ the rights to the ROM code.


> 
> Personally, I created the ROM images from my enhanced IIe, my ROM 1
> and my ROM 3 IIgs myself (I have bothered with my II+ ROM and I don't
> own an Apple //c yet).
 ....

     In which case you will, undoubtedly, rip off the //c ROM code, as well.
By your own oft stated criteria, you're a regular flaming Pirate!


     The simple painful truth is this:

     You and your vogon pals get all hot and moral about having verifiable
permission for using copyrighted software when someone offers a 20 year-old
game for download or tells a new user where to find it.

     But, when it comes to _your_ computer use and _your_ distributions,
then, concerns about owner rights, permissions, and copyright violations can
be sluffed aside and ignored.



Rubywand