On Dec 16, 9:48 am, "bbaker4...@gmail.com" <bbaker4...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Dec 14, 3:24 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
bill.mart...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 1:42 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
bill.mart...@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 14, 8:17 am, dog_...@macgui.com (D Finnigan) wrote:
Toinet wrote:
Just wondering. I've discovered plenty of interesting materials
there...
antoine
http://mirrors.apple2.org.za/ftp.apple.asimov.net/images/other_archives/
I've been contributing to it, mostly from the Vault mirrors collection,
which currently is not publicly accessible.
(As you may recall from a few months ago, when I was distributing a mirror
of whatisthe2gs.)
--
Mac GUI Vault - A source for retroApple IIand
Macintosh computing.http://macgui.com/vault/
Looks like someone took it upon themselves just to copy everyone's
websites without asking the website owners again.
Kind of like how thewayback machinecopies websites...
Although I think I understand your desire for the courtesy of
being asked, the web is actually all about copying. Every visit
to a page gets a copy of that page, which can be saved.
This isn't a case of putting up uncredited, fiddled mirrors. This
is about putting up dated archives of credited sites. There can never
be any confusion of these archives with the live, current site.
Given the capricious way that web sites come and go, I can see the
value in preserving multiple archives of the most useful sites.
...and courtesy is also a good thing. ;-)
-michael
NadaNet 3.1 forApple IIparallel computing!
Home page: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
I find little value in it since our web sites have been up for 10
years with a total of about 12 hours downtime over that time frame.
Also, just because it is on the web, doesnt mean the websites are not
copyrighted or that the website owners dont want their sites copied.
Unfortunately, there are a few people out there who dont respect the
work that others have put into these sites, which is one reason, I am
reluctant these days to put out anything more. Courtesy is a big
thing and this kind of blatant copying just goes back to the way
things were in the late 1990's when there was nothing but in fighting.
I see your point, Bill. Do you see mine?
I would hate to think that a primary motivation for your efforts
in making software and documents available is to exercise control
over them. (And, yes, I do understand that some of your suppliers
may feel the need for such control. ;-)
Copying software that is producing income for its author is quite
a different thing from archiving a web site. As is copying software
that is not producing income for anyone, and hasn't for years.
Copyright to safeguard an income stream for a reasonable period of
time serves a useful purpose. Copyright simply to exercise control
over the availability of material seems much more suspect.
The only benefit I can see to retaining such control is that it
makes "version control" easier when updates occur. Keeping date
and version information "on the label" goes a long way to keeping
this from being a problem.
If Wikileaks teaches us anything, it is that information that can
be copied *cannot* be controlled.
-michael
NadaNet 3.1 forApple IIparallel computing!
Home page: http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon/
"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."
Thank you Mike for such a reasoned response.
I've been thinking about this, especially in light of the "late 1990's
infighting" comment above. I was actually thinking about that
infighting the day before the comment came up... because some rancor
was surfacing here. And my conclusion, as an uninvolved observer of
the period, is that it centered around money. Someone's ox was
getting gored, either for real or in their perception, and that always
creates bad feelings.
I think that in the current case, there's not revenues at stake for
software or softcopy documents now - but there is revenue based on
traffic. And, just like software revenue, I can understand and
sympathize with the desire to retain that. If exclusive and owned
content can drive traffic and revenue, that needs to be respected and
retained. Someday, Bill will win the lottery, move to Fiji, and his
website will disappear - those that care about the content should be
prepared for that eventuality - but re-posting content today, given
what we know, is pretty bad form. Aggregators have learned to stay
away from Syndicomm content; they need to learn to stay away from
A.P.P.L.E/applearchives.com content too.