Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Except that this rule results in thousands
of software titles being lost forever...
There are (at this time) very few people
that even care to acquire this stuff, even
for free, its not even worth the time to
download it. If the present trend continues,
eventually none of this stuff will exist in any
form, anywhere.

I have considered the possibility that the
owners do not want their software copied,
and have concluded that if this was true,
they would mention it.  In the mean time
they remain free to mention it, thus there
is no cost of erring in copying it in the
mean time because they remain free to
mention it, while the cost of not copying
it could will eventually result in this
material being lost forever.

Often times even failing to make a decision
results in a decision itself, and this decision
has consequences. The case of waiting until
an assertion is utterly disproven until
rejecting this assertion pertained to the
possible cost of losing one's soul to Hell,
against the benefit of the right to say mean
and nasty words. In this case even a very
slight chance of the assertion being true,
was too high a cost to be worth a benefit
that even hurts the beneficiary.

LumiTech wrote:

> in article 3A7DD773.3493CC85@qwest.net, olcott at olcott@qwest.net wrote on
> 2/4/01 14:28:
>
> You said:
>
> > I always consider every possibility
> > until they have been utterly disproven.
>
> ...and then later said:
>
> > Taking something that the owners have abandoned
> > is not stealing. If the owners have not abandoned it
> > they they could be found, since they can not be found
> > we can reasonably construe that they have abandoned it.
>
> I suggest you follow your first statement and consider the possibility that
> the owners have not abandoned anything until they have publicly stated so.
> You can not "reasonably construe" anything if nothing has been "utterly
> disproven."