Tony Ward writes ...
>
> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:21:11 -0500, Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > So far, the managers of our public archives have proved to be a
> > good deal more honest and straightforward than their attackers. Besides,
> > unlike the situation with hidden for-pay archives on Genie, Delphi,
> > etc., everything is out in the open. If an owner believes his/her wishes
> > are being ignored, the owner need merely post a complaint to Csa2 and
> > everyone will know.
>
> You continue to perpetuate incorrect information. You mistakenly assume
> that the "hidden for-pay archives" contain copyrighted software against
> the authors' wishes. That is simply not the case.
The only mention of Genie and Delphi here is in the observation:
"Besides, unlike the situation with hidden for-pay archives on Genie,
Delphi,
etc., everything is out in the open."
It is a simple statement of fact, is it not?
> Genie and Delphi
> maintain their software libraries in a very specific manner. They do not
> even accept uploads of software unless they are sure of the status. This
> is a basic tenet of the Delphi and Genie membership agreements.
>
> Yes, this means that whenever somebody other than the author uploads
> software to Genie or Delphi, the staff contacts the author to make sure
> it's okay. If the author cannot be contacted, the software is not
> released. Period. This is the diametrically opposite position of an ftp
> site such as Asimov which allows anything to be uploaded and released as
> long the author and/or copyright holder doesn't object.
All of this would be easier to believe if the Genie/Delphi archive
contents were open to public scrutiny.
Has there been some change so that Genie and Delphi contents may be
perused by any user whether or not the user is a subscriber? If so, why
keep this a secret? If not, then you have labeled a simple statement of
fact as "misinformation". This does not inspire trust.
Anyway, why not permit public viewing of contents without download
privileges and advertise a URL for users to do this viewing? If your
for-pay archives contain materials of interest to users, the archives
might attract new subscribers.
>
> There's no point in arguing over the two viewpoints.
Probably not, since the "two viewpoints" are both yours.
> I'm not going to
> debate who is right and who is wrong. But I am going to defend Genie and
> Delphi against potentially slanderous attacks and lies such as those put
> forth in the above statement from Rubywand.
Once again, the statement says:
"Besides, unlike the situation with hidden for-pay archives on Genie,
Delphi,
etc., everything is out in the open."
If the full contents of the Genie or Delphi archive has been opened
for viewing by non-subscribers, then, why not just say so and post the
URL? It would be good news and we could clear up a simple
misunderstanding.
In any case, for you to speak of "potentially slanderous attacks
and lies such as those put forth in the above statement from Rubywand"
is, in itself, a slanderous attack, is it not? What is the purpose of
this attack?
>
> I'm sure a lot of people reading this have no idea who I am or why I
> should care about this situation. I care because I have been maintaining
> the software library for the A2 RoundTable on Genie for over 5 years,
> and on Delphi since the A2 Forum opened 2 years ago. I want to make sure
> the readers of comp.sys.apple2 know the truth about Genie and Delphi,
> and not some fictitous account written by someone who has no clue.
>
> If you have any questions about the Genie or Delphi software libraries,
> feel free to post them here or contact me directly via email.
Rather than expect us to accept the claims of those who maintain an
archive that "well, of course, we are honest and trustworthy", why not
open the archive contents for public viewing by non-subscribers and
copyright owners and post the URL here?
> Thank you for listening.
As always, you are welcome.
Rubywand