Re: Source Code for OS?

["Simon Biber" <simon@basilisk2.cjb.net>]

> Give me one example of any Apple DOs 3.3 software that is
> currently being sold by its original copyright owner.

Terrapin Logo. They still sell both the Dos 3.3 and ProDOS versions.

>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,

But their availability for free download means that only people who need the
original media or the manuals will buy a used copy. If it wasn't available
then everyone would have to buy used and the value would go up heaps. By
making it available for free you are robbing these legitimate users of the
software of the value of their investment.

> 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.

While that's true, in my moral view (not legal view) of the situation, it is
wrong to harm anyone. Not just the original copyright holders.

> 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.

Why is only the copyright owner the only one who should receive protection?

> 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)...

I'm not a moral dogmatist. I agree with you in your disgust at moral
dogmatists.

> 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.

Yes, but (a) software is generally not covered by patent law, and (b) you
said we're not talking about the letter of the law but what _should_ happen.

> 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.

Strict netiquette dictates that you post in the most appropriate and most
specific group available. Wholesale crossposting to the mother group c.s.a2
is not right according to netiquette. I agree that it's unfortunate that
most people only read c.s.a2 and so the subgroups go largely unused.

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

But you should have used a proper crosspost, not a separate post in each.

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

They didn't refuse to reply to the "right" group. Do you really understand
what "refuse" means? It means you deliberately and knowingly decide not to
do something. If they didn't go to the "right" group then they didn't refuse
to post there. They just didn't post there. And I don't think you can draw
much of a conclusion from that, except that most people don't read c.s.a2.p.

Simon.