Re: Asimov Site

[wbdesnoy@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)]

Frank Townsend (ftownsen@iamdigex.net) wrote:
: "Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message

: > It becomes particularly pathetic when people argue about ownership of
: > stuff which no longer have any value.

: That vintage software has no value is, of course, the premise of those
: who argue that they should have unfettered access to it.  But if it has no
: intrinsic value, then why do people want it?

Sorry about entering the wrong side of the debate, but your argument does not
ring true from the copyright owner's perspective.  As an (isolated) example we
have Sybase stating:

  When Sybase realised that the Watcom C/C++ and Fortran compilers
  were no longer commercially viable, they searched around to find a
  solution for their existing customers. 

  (from: http://www.openwatcom.org/info.html)

This is in reference to releasing the Watcom compilers as open source software.
They are clearly suggesting that it is possible for software to have value to
their customers, but be of negligable value to the owners as a commercial
product.

Granted, in this case the owner is the one determining commercial viability.
This gives them the opportunity to judge viability by a measure greater than
per-copy sales (such as the value of the trademark), but . . .

: First of all, if its not your land, you are trespassing.  You should have
: asked first for permission even to enter.  Even if you have a license from
: the owner to enter, you do not have an automatic right to remove objects
: from the land.  Basic property law.

Strictly speaking, this "basic property law" is not true.  If you own 
riverfront property, there is a clearance on "your land" which anybody can
access.  Likewise, Canadian copyright law grants software owners limited
copying and modification privilages.  Software publishers circumvent these
rights with licence agreements.  That always leaves me in a quandary, because
I respect intellectual property rights but not the publishers attempts to deny
my property rights (as defined by Canadian law).  But that is another issue.

Byron.