Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

If they can't be found after reasonable effort
(I spent three whole days trying to track down Manx,
and found two phone numbers in New Jersey that were
long since disconnected) then the default should be to
retain these historical  artifacts, rather than destroy them
to merely be in compliance with the letter-of-the-law,
that is not serving the intent of the law. Everyone here
arguing against me on this seems utterly clueless on this
simple and clear reasoning. It like they are expecting that
any day now everyone is going to drop all of their
modern equipment and hundreds-fold more functional
software and begin a new boom in old Apple Dos 3.3
use. It aint a gonna happen people! If you really care so
much about this (rather than arguing endlessly from
an incorrect point of view) YOU track any of these
guys down and see for yourself, that they don't care...
They are the only one's with the authority and power
to stop this "horrible theft" of valueless propery...
Put your money where you mouth is...

Simon Biber wrote:

> > The whole point of these nearly endless discussions is
> > that in some cases moral and legal do not directly correspond.
> > There are moral things that are illegal, and legal things that
> > are immoral.  In the case of copying software that does
> > not nor will have any possible commercial potential
> > for the remaining life of the copyright, there is no actual
> > harm that is taking place, (the author is not losing any money)
> > thus without harm, wrong can not exist.  There will never
> > again be any commercial potential for Apple Dos 3.3
> > software, the current stuff is hundreds fold more
> > functional. I myself would much rather buy the real
> > thing, but, making sure that every last copy is deleted
> > to merely to comply with the letter-of-the-law, is
> > absurd...
>
> Don't you think it is the author who has the sole responsibility to make the
> judgement that their work does not and will not have any possible commercial
> potential for the remaining life of the copyright?
>
> Simon.