[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Asimov Mirror Sites Access Information-- awks distribution
Jeff Blakeney writes ...
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 19:28:12 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > If the copyright owner does not object to having an old product
> >distributed to thousands of appreciative users, why should you?
>
> Let me paraphrase that question and give some answers.
>
> If a store owner doesn't object to someone shoplifting in their store
> because they don't realize it is happening, why should I?
Not a very honest "paraphrase":
o- Shoplifting goes far beyond 'taking limited, non-damaging liberties with
private property'.
o- There is every reason to believe that a store owner would object to
shoplifting.
o- Shoplifting is against the law.
None of these conditions apply to the free distribution of Appleworks.
....
> I realize you posted that question in the context of Apple "knowing"
> that their software is being illegally distributed and not objecting
> but you offer no proof but only conjecture that Apple knows about it
> and has done nothing.
....
???
All sorts of people were contacting Apple about Appleworks distribution
and have posted messages about their contacts.
As for the free distribution being "illegal", that is pure nonsense. The
product no longer had commercial value, there was no reason to believe that
Apple would object, and, in fact, Apple did not/has not objected.
Regarding proof that Apple has not sought to stop the distribution, one
wonders what you consider "proof". Since Apple could halt the distribution in
the blink of an eye, the mere fact that free distribution continues is all the
proof anyone should need.
Instead of hunting for ways to wreck user access to one more piece of
quality Apple II software, you should be grateful to Apple for permitting the
free distribution of Appleworks.
You still want to claim that the distribution is illegal? Okay; either
prove it or stop pestering users.
Rubywand