Re: Backup Copies

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

Sheldon Simms wrote:

>  Only
> > those with a guilty conscience will complain if someone points out the
> > status of a work of the programmer's art.
>
> Nonsense.

So you will complain if someone points out that a program is still
copyrighted? Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that programmers
aren't artists?

> I am a programmer, and I and the company I work for would
> be quite unhappy if someone started passing out copies of our products
> for free on the internet. If, however, the company goes bust and we've
> all moved on to other stuff, and there's no market for our old software,
> then I won't give a rip if someone puts it on an ftp site.

You, of course, are speaking for one programmer. As has been pointed out on
this subject here, many times, is that there are companies that don't have
that attitude. Microsoft is a case in point. And contrary to another post,
Apple is another.

>
>
> The problem is the assumption that law equals morality.

You might have been making that assumption, I wasn't.

> It doesn't.
> Not so long ago in the US, there were lots of laws saying that black
> people had to sit at the back of the bus. Was that moral? Was that
> ethical?

See above.

>
>
> Morality is a much fuzzier concept than just what's written down as a
> law. Some people believe that morality is defined by God, or some other
> infallible authority. I don't expect there's anything about distributing
> old software on the internet in the Bible.

 No, there isn't. But there is plenty about taking things that don't belong to
you without permission. And while there are distinctions between ethics and
morality, most systems of ethics would agree with the Bible and the Quran that
you shouldn't take something that doesn't belong to you without the permission
of the owner.

How many times have you seen local papers and TV stations do the old "lost
wallet" sting to see if the people in their area are honest? Since I have
moved a lot, I've seen it a number of times. Wallet, with money, and no ID.
Here in the center of the country a large majority of people try to  find the
owner, or contact the police for same. Too bad people don't do the same with
software.

> Some people believe that
> morality is a matter of not harming others, of doing unto others as you
> would have them do unto you. If that's morality, then who's being harmed
> by distributing old programs that the authors and/or copyright holders
> have abandoned?
>
> As a professional programmer, I believe in the golden rule -- that's why
> I think it's wrong to copy software that the author/copyright holder has
> an interest in. But I don't think it's wrong to distribute software that
> the author/copyright holder has abandoned.

1. Prove that the software in question has been abandoned. Do you abandon your
car if it breaks down on the highway? May I take it then, because it's
abandoned? Or the wallet on the sidewalk, it's been abandoned.

2. What's wrong with contacting the copyright owner and asking permission?
Other than some people are too lazy to try; or perhaps are afraid of getting a
negative reply.

> In fact, I think it's right,
> because no one suffers any harm of any kind, and many people benefit.

I think that that's a good reason to get the software reclassified as
freeware. I'd love to see Copy II Plus reclassified, ditto for AppleWorks.

Roy

>
>
> -Sheldon