Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Simon Biber wrote:

> > This would be a sound example of actual stealing.
> > This example would NOT apply if regardless of
> > their placement on asimov, they could not be
> > sold because they are 100-fold below the current
> > level of functionality. You place any 1998 Mac
> > software on asimov, and you will be hearing about
> > it. You place any 1981 Apple Dos 3.3 software
> > and you will not hear about it, except from
> > nit pickers whom only know the letter-of-the-law,
> > and pay no regard to the spirit (intention) of-the-law.
>
> 1980s programs can be sold, and are sold regularly. Their value is not in

Give me one example of any Apple DOs 3.3 software that is
currently being sold by its original copyright owner. It does not
count that some people are selling used copies of this old software,
because these will sell (I myself will buy them) regardless
of their availability for free download, and also in this case
the original copyright owners receive no benefit form this sale
of used software, thus are not in this way harmed by the
free downloads. The ONLY cases that should be (morally)
excluded from free download, are these such examples,
because these examples are the ONLY cases where the
legitimate owner is being harmed. The reasoning is very simple...
No Harm therefore No Wrong.... Most moral dogmatists
can't comprehend this. They see Rule, Violation of Rule
therefore wrong (even if no harm)...

>
> the level of functionality! It makes no difference whether you get told off
> by the copyright owner.
>
> > > Yeah... I'm a legitimate owner.  Not the copyright owner, but I will
> defend their
> >
> > The copyright owner is the only legitimate owner.
>
> The copyright owner is the only legitimate owner of the software, true. The
> end users are legitimate owners of the media, other paraphernalia, and a
> license to use the software. All three of these items have value. It can be
> illegal to reduce the value of something owned by someone else. But the
> person who uploaded it is much more likely to be convicted for misuse of
> copyrighted works than for diluting the value of the license of a particular
> end-user.
>
> > It is throughout patent law... I am not talking
> > letter-of-the-law, I am talking the moral
> > (intent) of the law. The moral intent of copyright
> > law is to protect the ownership rights of original
> > works, for a limited time so that the authors
> > can be compensated for their efforts.
>
> There is a fundamental legal difference between different forms of
> Intellectual Property protection. Patents allow one to exercise a level of
> control which is in my opinion excessive now that the the US office
> regularly allows patents of mathematical processes and software algorithms;
> things which should be free. Accordingly there are measures for deprotection
> in case of abandonment (you have to be able to contact a patent holder to
> negotiate licensing).
>

Abandonment utterly loses all ownership rights in patent law...
Abandonment has been defined as narrowly as not promoting
the work on a daily basis, even taking a short break can
be considered abandonment.

>
> > > No, it just proved that folks will answer stuff even if it's not in the
> > > appropriate newsgroup.  ;)
> >
> > No, in this case I was utterly proven to be
> > correct, because although they were willing
> > to post to the wrong group (as you suggest),
> > the were unwilling to post to the right group.
> > My point was to get answers you MUST
> > post to the wrong groups... Following
> > netiquette fails to get the required results
> > ignoring netiquette gets the results, thus
> > netiquette is WRONG on this point.
>
> This is utterly stupid reasoning. Firstly, you violated Netiquette by
> posting the same message in multiple groups separately. A cross-post is

And then ONLY getting the correct answers on the WRONG
groups. Since the purpose of asking questions is getting answers,
and following netiquette forgoes these answers, therefore
following netiquete is WRONG. If the purpose of asking
questions was to politely obey netiquette, and answers
played no role in the pupose of asking questions, thenn
(then and only then) would netiquette be correct.

>
> allowable if it is relevant for all groups sent to, and if you send to all
> groups simultaneously. This ensures that the whole thread is the same on
> both groups, and that if you read the thread in one group your newsreader
> marks the other one as read also.
>

I was asking apple2 questions (programmer or not)
of both groups (programmer and not).

>
> If people replied to your message in the wrong group, then perhaps they saw
> it there and didn't bother to tell you it was off-topic. In doing so they

NO they ONLY replied to the "wrong" group refusing
to reply to the "right" group. (they did not go to the "right"
group).

>
> also violated netiquette. This doesn't mean that Netiquette is wrong!
>

Sure it does. This narrow minded view of netiquette
is incorrect. (see above)

>
> You can't tell us that they were unwilling to post to the right group. They
> may not know it exists, or they may not subscribe to it.
>
> Simon.