Re: OS-9 L2 .DSK needed

[Rogelio Perea H <rogerp@internogo.com>]

Louis Schulman wrote:
 
> I think we all have a responsibility to protect recorded knowledge, even in
> trivial old software.  If the copyright holders don't exercise their rights
> and this responsibility, it is up to the rest of us.

I guess your last statement pretty much sums up what WE should be doing
to preserve the old software. Yes its illegal to make copies of
copyrighted software, but YES (also), it has proven very hard - if not
impossible - to get hold of the copyright owners trying to license those
packages... 

This last part of the 20th century seems to be plagued with the Me-Me-Me
syndrom:

	First, it's Me
	Then after Me it's Me
	And to finish, it's Me...

There are a lot of arguments that support both sides of the issue (if
it's to be said this orphanware issue has only two sides). But the only
thing that's being eroded while we try to enforce a way of conduct is
the software itself. I wonder how many great packages have been lost in
a basement, warehouse, closet and even the trash lot just because the
copyright owner didn't want to release it under a more flexible way.

Of a flexible way I mean that lets live up to today's reality!. Who's
going to make money selling copyrighted programs for the CoCo or any
other orphan for that matter? How much of a difference to the copyright
owner in terms of cash is it going to make if he/she releases his
creations as shareware/freeware or public domain?

Ah well. After all, XYZ & Company did the CoCo-Draw3D graphics design
system and they stopped selling about 10 years ago and they won't
release the rights for that software... it's their right - the BIG loser
here is one entity only: The CoCo.

Remember that line when Spock dies of radiation posioning after fixin'
up the warp drive of the Enterprise (Star Trek II)?:

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"

-=-=-=-
Rogelio