Re: Licensing, distributing Apple II system software, and II computing

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

Rubywand wrote:

> Eric Shepherd writes ...
>
> > I consider it my obligation to do so as a licensee.  It's called abiding by
> > the terms of my signed agreement with Apple. :)
> >

>     Apple's licenses do not appear to require that a licensee ask if his/her
> license is still good. They generally specify that Apple will inform the
> licensee should there be a change in status.

Ah, but Sheppy is a *new* licensee. And as someone seeking to be an Apple licensee,
he needs to ask about the software that he would like to offer. Which he did. I'm
glad to know that he asked, I wish that Apple hadn't been so closed minded about
it, but as someone seeking to get a license, what he did, and the way he did it, is
exactly the proper path. Besides, it's the only intelligent thing he could have
done.

>
>
>      As was mentioned a few months ago, Apple said that it had not sent out
> cancellation notices. Unless you knew of notices being sent, there was no
> reason to be concerned that you had missed a notification and no obligation to
> contact Apple.

You really aren't too swift on the uptake are you Jeff? Reread Sheppy's first
posting, announcing that he and A2Central are *now* Apple licensees. Having reread
it, please try to figure out how dumb your statement above is. How would he miss a
notification, if such would only be sent to licensees of which he wasn't one? I
didn't receive a notification, why? I'm not a licensee. Are you a licensee? Did
Apple contact you to tell you that you may no longer sell software that they never
licensed you to sell? Strange, I wonder why not?

>
>
>      The "don't ask" suggestion is based upon a common sense respect for the
> wishes of the rights owner. It is obvious that Apple does not at all mind
> having its Apple II system software freely distributed.

It's only obvious to someone who would make statements like the one you made above.
To not ask but go ahead and distribute something that you don't have permission to
distribute, well, only someone with a really warped psyche would see that as
showing respect for the copyright holder.

>
>
>      As was illustrated in a recent situation involving unathorized
> distribution of Mac system software, Apple most certainly will act to close
> down distriutions it does not like. Apple has not opposed distributions of its
> II series system software because the company has everything to gain and
> nothing to lose.

Snort, chuckle, choke. If they have everything to gain from Apple II distribution,
why not Mac OS System 6? The keyword above is "unauthorized" (sic). Sheppy was
seeking authorization. I, for one, am glad he was.

An interesting thought just flashed through my mind: Sheppy has just been given
permission. Why don't you ask for permission. Include this post to show how
supportive you are of Apple Computer. See if *you* get permission.

>
>
>      Given the above, asking for permission to distribute, say, DOS 3.3 serves
> no useful purpose.

Except to gain something you don't have - the legal right to distribute DOS 3.3.
Oh, and to protect something else you just gained, the legal right to distribute
GS/OS, ProDOS, Hypercard GS, and GS CD-ROM support files.

BTW - the last time I was on AOL (and that's been sometime now) Apple still
distributed software from their own AOL forum, including Apple II software: but the
only Apple II software that Apple would distribute was exactly the same software
that they have given Sheppy permission to distribute. No DOS, no Pascal system
software. Why would they give him permission to distribute something that they
don't distribute themselves (but I asked him, because I had hopes.)

> First, it puts a company rep 'on the spot' to come up with a
> potentially legally binding response in a situation where ambiguity is
> preferred.

You statement shows that you don't have a firm grip on reality. Your imagination of
what Apple wants certainly doesn't match Apple's on statements and actions. Oh,
BTW, inaction, isn't action.

> Second, it allows the possibility of an error on the part of the
> responding company rep which could produce a "no".

What about asking for permission to distribute ProDOS? That didn't put a company
rep "'on the spot'"? Why is "ambiguity preferred" for DOS 3.3, but not for ProDOS?
Is there no "possibility of an error on the part of the responding company rep" for
ProDOS? For GS/OS? For HyperCardGS?

> (The "no" you received for
> DOS 3.3 is almost certainly a mistake. DOS 3.3 is expressly included in the
> standard distribution license granted to any user group.)

While that may have been true at one time (I need to check into that... I wonder if
AppleLinc, as an authorized Apple club has that right... hmmmm, perhaps we have the
right to distribute Pascal system software too... I wonder....) can you prove that
*new* clubs are getting that permission? Your point about no notification of
revoking of rights is valid only to those who once were given the right, not to
those *now* seeking the right.

>
>
>      Once you ask and get a "no", you're stuck with either pursuing the matter
> until you get a "yes" or accepting the refusal and, in this case, not
> distributing bootable DOS 3.3 disks.

But, it's the only proper way to go.

>
>
>      It is nice that you now feel that you can distribute most Apple II system
> software.

I don't know how Sheppy "feels", but his feelings aren't important, what's
important is he has a legal right, granted by Apple Computer to distribute (some)
Apple II system software. He doesn't need to "feel" it, he needs the legal
documentation, and evidently has it. I would humbly suggest that you stop "feeling"
and start *thinking*. Perhaps then your posts would make more sense.

> On the other hand, users, small scale commercial sellers, and on-line
> archives have, with no special license, been distributing Apple II system
> software, including DOS 3.3, for years.

But only those with a license have been doing so legally.

> Their activities in support of II
> computing are the chief reason you can, in 2000 AD, talk about "Apple II
> Forever" and produce a 'zine anyone is around to read.

I doubt that pirate sites are the chief reason A2Central is around. The only
software that I've ever downloaded and have run for the II family was
Wolfenstein3D. The hundreds of disks in my basement have come from Goodwill, from
private purchase, from the providence of once working with a "computer recycling
center", and from the AppleLinc Apple II computer club.

A2Central is far more than a `zine. I urge every Apple II user to keep their eyes
on the growth to come in A2Central. Sheppy has been supporting us for some time
with his programming work, and now is branching out. I just hope he doesn't go
broke or get burnt out by his efforts.

Roy