Re: 6th Nov, 2009 - Announcing the rebirth of the Apple IIgs

[dog_cow@macgui.com (D Finnigan)]

schmidtdwrote:
> On Nov 11, 10:48�am, dog_...@macgui.com (D Finnigan) wrote:
>> Steven Hirsch wrote:
>>
>> > AMart79...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> I didn't want to chime in on this, but I now feel the need to put this
>> >> to bed. �To keep this all very simple, the source code is private---
>> >> why, because its Apple's and no one from Apple has given the
>> >> permission to release it as opensouce.
>>
>> > I'll be astounded if Apple ever provides such permission. �Still, one
>> > can
>> > hope.
>>
>> I'll be astounded if Apple even gives a hoot about this old stuff.
> 
> Giving a hoot or not is irrelevant.  It's very easy for a lawyer to
> say, "no."  If they say "yes" in an official capacity, it means more
> work for them.
>

No, it's not irrelevant.

One has to always consider the financial incentive:
1.) Are they still making a profit?
2.) Are we making a profit?

If the answers to both questions is 'No', then the chances of legal action
fall to almost zero. Sending out lawyers costs money. If a company is
neither gaining nor losing money over a product, then they aren't going to
pay for legal action.