Re: The Apple II RedBook - Online

["Frank Townsend" <ftownsen@iamdigex.net>]

"Paul Schlyter" <pausch@saafNOSPAM.se> wrote in message
news:8n5l7b$9rj$1@merope.saaf.se...

> I think this forum would appreciate if you did choose to bring up a
> subject which hasn't been flogged to death 4711 times already.

I sense that it is an uncomfortable issue for you, but I don't recall that
you are a usenet moderator, or speak in any official capacity for this ng in
particular.  Filter me if you are not interested in what I have to say ;-)

> But of course: this is a public forum, and if you don't worry about
> your reputation, feel free to bring up any question here, including
> questions which have been discussed to death already recently.

You worry about your reputation, I'll worry about mine ;-)

> Cturley claims to have proof of permission to make the Red Book
> available online.  His claim is quite reasonable: after all the Red
> Book hasn't been sold for decades by Apple, and they have no economic
> interest in that product anymore.

Whoa!  Mr. Turley made various assertions regarding permission.  I am not
sure the claim[s] are "reasonable" though.  Here they are:

4/12/2000 I have permission from the author of the Redbook to scan it and
put it online.
4/15/2000 The author and copyright holder has no objections to it's being
presented cover to cover online.
4/15/2000 I got an OK from Woz on my request for doing a cover to cover scan
and that's good enough for me.
4/17/2000  Not true!  I (Charles T. Turley - and no other PEOPLE) am doing a
cover to cover scan of the Redbook with ALL authors and copyright holders
consent.

The only individual named as having granted consent is Woz.  It would be
doubtful if Woz has the authority to speak for Apple, Inc. (the copyright
holder) and grant such permission .  Other authors mentioned in the Red Book
include A. Baum, Wendell Bitter, R. Wigginton and "Elwood" and I don't see
any evidence of permissions from these authors as having been sought or
granted.

> But you don't believe him, and want to dispute his claim.

Verify, not dispute.  You have to admit, it is all a little vague ;-)

Why do you
> want to do that?  I can think of two possible reasons:
> 1. You want to know whether his claim is true or not.  Then this
> forum isn't the appropriate place:

Of course it is!  Why not a text file attached stating the specifics, ie,
who granted permission, and when.  Perhaps a scan of permission on
letterhead from Apple, Inc, email with headers, etc.  Many people simply
don't want to download illegal copies of copyrighted works, and have a
legitimate interest in being able to know with some confidence that a copy
is a legal copy.  Agreed, others just don't care ;-).

the only one here who knows
> whether it's true or not is Cturley himself -- and you've already
> decided you don't trust him, right?

I knew you were a star gazer:  mind reader also? ;-)

> 2. You want to create a lot of noise.  If so, this forum may sadly
> be the appropriate place to post.  Can we expect yet another boring
> thread on the topics "Is Cturley a liar/pirate/<substitute your own
> insult here>?" and "Is it ethical to distribute old software products
> which has been without commercial value for decades?" ???

A self-fulfilling prophecy?  I certainly have been quite civil and have not
insulted anyone.

> certainly hope not -- but one doesn't know.  And if such a thread
> starts, you're the one who is responsible for it.

If this terrible thing happens, rest assured, I will be appropriately
contrite ;-)


Frank Townsend
......looking at a nice warm evening in Baltimore