> On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:15 PM, Peter Cetinski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 2:01 PM, Paul Koning <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> Personally? I think the rightest way is to eliminiate the legal
>>>> fiction called "intellectual property", as a good-sounding experiment
>>>> that has failed. It is not producing the effects it was put in place
>>>> to produce and it is producing a lot of other, ill, effects.
>>>
>>> Agree. I think the whole concept of intellectual property is weird. Calling
>>> some thought in your head a "property" have strange implications. If I say
>>> some words that makes you think of something, can I then make you violate
>>> my intellectual property? When if you thought of the same idea
>>> independently? How did you violate my intellectual property in that case?
>>>
>>
>> There are a lot of diffent ways to approach copyright questions.
>>
>> The second is to use what is readily available but stop when told to. This
>> is what google seems to do; it also seems to be the bitsavers approach.
>>
>
> The “second” approach is what we are using for the TRS-80 Model II archive
> that Mark mentioned (https://github.com/pski/model2archive
> <https://github.com/pski/model2archive>). While we have received explicit
> permission from copyright owners that we can determine, such as Scott Adams
> for his Model II versions of the adventure games, the rest is made available
> until someone says “please take this down because I own it and don’t want it
> distributed”. It seems to be the best balanced approach for rescuing the
> software from oblivion while also respecting authorship of no longer
> commercially available software.
Yes, I agree with that.
FWIW, another exmaple of "approach 1" is the PLATO system at cyber1.org.
paul
