Re: Piracy of magazine-based routines?

[rubywand@aol.com (RUBYWAND)]

In article <53ul1q$57n@news.emi.com>, drsmooth@relex.com (Edhel Iaur)
writes:

>
>How immoral would it be to make public, programs that use routines
>from _A+_, _Nibble_, _Inside the Apple //e_, and (1 or 2 from)
>_SoftDisk_?  I'd also like to hear similar opinions about One-Liners
>from _Nibble_, and a VERY modified version of AE's AUTOCOPY that
>converts file types.
>--


     Unless you want to get into some very twisty 'gray areas', your best
be is to apply common sense. Routines and groups of routines which are,
clearly, unique products having obvious potential for producing income
(e.g. via licensing) should not be dumped onto a net ftp resource site
unless the creator has made it clear that he/she does not mind. (Often,
the creator will require only that some kind of credit notice be
displayed.)

     Many routines which appear in print or are used in programs are 'fair
game'. They may include a few new twists but, mainly, they are too simple,
too small, too obvious, etc. for anyone to expect that he or she has any
right of ownership. Even so, if a particular routine is useful, it does no
harm to give credit.


Rubywand