Re: TASC (The Apple Soft Compiler)

[Devlin Sakey <yngwie@kcbbs.gen.nz>]

I don't want to turn this into a tit for tat argument, so as before,
this is not a stab at Doktor DynaSoar's or anyone's opinion, but merely
a slight clarification of what I said and where I stand. I'm sure we can
agree to disagree, for those who strongly object to what I'm about to
say. So this will probably be my last word on the matter. ...Rant
...Rave :)

Doktor DynaSoar wrote:
> Could be, and certainly we'd like it to be, but to say should presumes
> to tell the owner of something that they do not control their own
> property.

By refusing to allow sale or public domain access of any kind, I'm under
the opinion that these people are too goddamn lazy to address the issue.
It might (god forbid!) cost them a few dollars to have the license
transferred into public domain. After all, the items in question as I've
previously said are of historical and teaching interest only now. I'd
say they're NOT controlling their property.

> Pedantic is irrelevant to the law, I'm sorry to say.

On something like this where revenue loss is not really an issue, and
I'm not really depriving anyone of anything. So much so that I very much
doubt MS would even care enough to pursue the issue if I walked in and
copied it in their office. (Slight exaggeration to demonstrate the point
people.) Then I say the LAW is only marginally relevant. (No flames on
this one people... Just my opinion. Constructive discussion please.)

I'm a firm beleiver in the fact that there are cases where the law does
not address the issue of common good, and this is very prolific in cases
where bureaucracy causes inaction. (Government? - MS? Damn near the same
thing in this industry. However that's an issue for another forum.)

No, I'm not a commie. (For those who were thinking it.)
I despise bureaucracy, not democracy and the free market.

Whether MS COULD or COULDN'T make any money, and might want to try at
some point in time, is also a pointless sidetrack to this discussion.
(for those who were about to bring it up.) They are not interested in
it, and IMHO, they are not about to be. After all, the Apple II is not
really a big part of THEIR history is it. Their next step after
licensing a version of BASIC that became Applesoft was to try and sink
the Apple II with the PC.

>>I can't comment for Microsoft U.S., but if no-one will sell me a peice
>>of software anymore, how else am I supposed to get it?
> 
> As far as they're concerned, you're not. I get the distinct impression
> from their web site that if they're not currently selling and 
> supporting it, they don't WANT you to have it.

I disagree. I am more of the opinion they are just too lazy to address
the issue. "Not a priority" so to speak. The affected number is too
small to be a serious PR issue, so they can't be bothered.

> I'm still trying. I've put a good deal of time and money into calls 
> and mail and I'm not through yet.

As I said to the previous person, you have my genuine thanks for your
efforts. I'm sure if pestered enough, by enough people, we may
eveeeeentually see a result. So as I said, as long as MS remains
inactive and generally uncooperative on something so simple to solve, I
will consider TASC public domain. That's my last Rant and Rave..

(Once again people... constructive discussion, no flames please.)

-- 
/--------------------------------------\
|Devlin Sakey - yngwie@kcbbs.gen.nz    |
|http://www.kcbbs.gen.nz/users/yngwie  |
\--------------------------------------/