Re: Official Apple II documentation?

[Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com>]

A2Aviator <a2aviator@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's one thing to be an active contributor, but when practically the
> entire site is based on content that is sniped off other peoples
> labor, without so much at least the courtesy to admit where you swiped
> it from ...
> 
> ..and I don't wanna hear a single thing about how long that takes. Dr.
> Ken obviously has time to paste his moniker all over the stuff as if
> everything on that site is labeled in some megalomaniacal way.
> 
> So what you are advocating is since shareware is placed online, it
> should not be paid for either? Maybe not 100% exactly the same, but
> pretty darn close.
> 
> ..and more on the time subject, obvious intention of deceit is afoot,
> around the latter part of last year I spent a great deal of effort
> gathering cards and scanning to provide Alex Lee a good chunk of the
> missing items on the What is the Apple IIgs? site. Alex then spent
> even more time masking clean edges around them and filling them in the
> colored theme of the section they were posted in.
> 
> Many of these same images are now also posted on a2ol, mind you,
> WITHOUT any credit other than his own. Only Alex and I have the photos
> in unmasked form. Time was OBVIOUSLY spent de-masking them again, and
> it's pretty obvious they were, as there are hints of the color purple
> on the edges of some. But time was had to label them with his own
> email address.
> 
> Nope, the intention of deceit argument does not fly here, so don't
> even bother filing a flight plan.
> 
> I do think it's pretty cool that there are some hardware items that
> have been submitted that are pretty rare, too bad it seemingly took
> ravaging other peoples work to get that far.
> 
> That has certainly put a damper on my desire to prepare and post
> stuff, I am NOT a fan of putting names and markings on stuff, and
> never wanted to resort to visibly tagging images, "protecting" (and
> branding) PDFs, et al.
> 
> Of course I would be insane to think any materials posted are not
> going to be "lifted", hell, I expect they will be. I save content
> myself. But to repost it all and expressly go out of my way to give
> the impression that it's all my content?
> 
> At least if I do tag and brand, and see that the tags and branding's
> have been removed- it certainly does establish intent of deceit.
> Simply ripping it off and reposting at least gives credit where credit
> is due.

I agree that credit should be given, particularly when original work is
involved. 
 
-michael  -  NadaNet 3.1:  http://home.comcast.net/~mjmahon