Re: Just a thought ...

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Willie Yeo writes ...
> 
 ....
> 
> >      Requiring specific permission to place each item on an archive is
> > unworkable. All major archives maintain copyrighted software. No major
> > archive tries to obtain specific permissions for each piece of software.
> 
>     It is not 'unworkable' or 'impossible', it's a dream and it takes time. It
> may not be as easy as 'taking candy from a baby', but there is certainly NO
> HARM in asking.
>

     First, let's be clear about the context.

     Will Smith brought up a number of interesting points regarding our
current software archives. He is talking, mainly, about sites like
Asimov which maintain old commercial software and seeking to promote the
idea that these sites should maintain only software for which they have
specific permission.

     That is, the discussion is not about Treasure Chest's quest to
reclassify software as freeware, public domain, etc.. It is about
archives maintaining software which the copyright owner does not wish to
reclassify.


     Asking a copyright holder for permission to maintain a
non-freeware, non-shareware product on a site is asking for rather more
than you may believe.  

     When you ask for permission to maintain the item, you are asking
for the copyright owner to go 'on record' with a statement which can be
interpreted as demeaning the value of their property-- "Sierra said
SpaceQuest/gs could be maintained on Asimov-GS for free downloading; so,
Sierra must believe SpaceQuest/gs is worthless." Or, even worse, the
"/gs" may be omitted from the argument.

     On the other hand, a copyright owner can 'look the other way' and
permit a product to exist on an archive with no loss in the product's
status without saying anything one way or the other.

     So, yes; asking _can_ do harm. The copyright owner may not mind
that the product has been maintained on the site-- may, indeed,
appreciate the free advertising for its brand name; but, if the
copyright owner wishes to maintain the product at its current
non-freeware, non-PD status, the safest response to your request is
"no". One the archive asks and is told "no", it must remove the product.
Everyone involved loses.

     
 
>     I really do not want to be involved in a debate of w@r3z sites. Personally,
> many of us would rather see that a piece of software can be downloaded without
> fear of infringement of Copyright laws.
> 
> >      If you want some idea of the enormous effort required to contact
> > and deal with copyright holders, ask Willie or Dr. Tom. For an
> > indication of what would be available, check Willie's list.
> 
>     Ask Charles Turley, he will give you a much broader idea how difficult it
> is. Of course, many of us keep an eye peeled for any additions.
> 
>     Treasure Chest Project is set up as an alternative, it is not a host of
> files, but rather list of programs that have been given permission to download
> / distributable freely. URL :
> http://www.tals.dis.qut.edu.au/staff/willie/treasurechest
> 
>     (On a note : Charles Turley has been credited as the person who brought
> about the reclassification of LISA 816, it has been noted on the HQ page and
> will be awaiting to be mirrored to the mirror sites.)
> 
>     (Haunted House is credited to Michael Ackeret; and efforts have been
> credited to Charles T., Sandy W & an unknownian for making it possible).
> 
> >      Very few non-freeware, non-shareware copyright owners are likely to
> > grant a specific permission. (I, probably, would not.)  Granting
> > permission in any verifiable form could be interpreted as a public
> > declaration that you feel your product has no market value. Most
> > commercial copyright owners appear to feel that anyone dumb enough to
> > ask for permission deserves to be told "no".
> 
>     That is subjective.
>

     Okay; maybe the "dumb enough to ask" part is a tad confrontatory.
And, again, we are not talking about reclassification. We are talking
about maintaining software which the copyright owner does not wish to
reclassify. As noted earlier, the point is that to ask is to invite--
almost require-- a "no".


 
> >        Getting permission for every piece of software maintained is fantasy.
> > If you want to see "life", connect with a few major archives.
> 
>     And what did you think Treasure Chest Project is about ?

     It is about reclassifying software. This discussion is not about
reclassifying software.


> 
>     It is everyone's fantasy ! Who could have imagine that a piece of software
> that you wanted to own for a long time is now avaliable for download freely ?
>

     The Treasure Chest Project has done well. So, also, have our
archives.


 
>     What I ask is, if you can contribute, just contribute. No one insist that
> you must contribute in exchange. Treasure Chest Project does not restrict
> anyone to enter into it's page in order to find out what can be downloaded. It
> is a page that lists all those programs that at one stage you need to pay for
> them in order to get them, which has been now, downloadable freely.
> 
>     This is the big difference between Treasure Chest Project and 'a few major
> archives'.

 ....

     Naturally. The Treasure Chest Project is concerned with changing
the status of software. Archives are concerned with making software
available to users. The missions are different but complimentary. Each
promotes the enjoyment and expansion of II computing.




Rubywand