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

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

"Byron Q. Desnoyers Winmill" wrote:

> Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> >> > Snort, chuckle, choke. If they have everything to gain from Apple II distribution,
> >> > why not Mac OS System 6?
>
> >> Apple still sells Macs and Mac software.
>
> > I own 68040 Macs that can't even use System 7.0. I seriously doubt that System 6 will boot on
> > an iMac. So how will Apple be hurt by letting people download System 6 for their old Mac
> > Plus'? By the logic you used above, Apple should be glad to let people download System 6 and
> > run their own Plus' and then maybe buy an iMac.
>
> And Apple is happy to let people download System 6.0.x from their site (and
> several versions of it at that).  It could actually benefit Apple, because
> it exposes people to their hardware and software.  I was, for example, one of
> those people who started with the venerable (second hand) Macintosh SE then
> ended up buying an iMac, along with several machines in between.  I would
> never have touched the iMac if that old beast didn't impress me so, but once
> I started digging in with ResEdit and MacsBug (also freely downloadable
> software, from Apple), I was hooked.  Heck, I won't even touch Intel hardware
> anymore.  At least not for my personal stockpile.  So loosening the ropes can
> help.

Bryan,
Part of the dispute though is that Apple did shut down sites that offered their software without
their permission. Otherwise, I think you and I are on the same page.

>
>
> Do they have to go all the way, and stick it into the public domain?  Well, it
> would be nice -- but it ain't going to happen.  But if the obsolete stuff is
> available from controlled sites, it will keep a few customers.  Does releasing
> software as old as DOS 3.3 help?  That I doubt, simply because the Apple II and
> Macintosh are such different beasts.

But it shouldn't hurt, and I think they should allow Sheppy to have access to it. Until they do, he
is perfectly correct in following the contract with Apple to the letter.

> Pascal?  Well, let's just say that UCSD
> Pascal ought to be enough to throw most people into bouts of raving lunacy.

LOL - thanks, I really, really needed a good laugh today.

OTOH - I'm trying to learn Apple's Pascal, I own 1.2 and I'd like to have the right to distribute a
bootable disk of any software that I write that I think should be allowed to escape my basement
Apple lab. That was one reason I asked Sheppy if Apple would allow him to distribute Pascal.

Roy