Dilwyn Jones wrote: > This is the argument for Abandonware. Yet our copyright laws in the UK > (whatever individual opinions might be) are clear enough as to what we can > and can't do, and our chances of being prosecuted are high enough. Rich > trained as a solicitor, he should know.
The traffic laws are also clear enough to me, still I'm occasionally prone to a parking violation. > Once contact has been made with authors/copyright holders, Rich generally > passes on software to me to make public unless the author forbids it - the > ones that get published are the choice of the copyright holder. By and > large, you don't hear of just how many QL programs Rich has secured > permission to pass on to me to make available, many times what few he > re-publishes. But people rarely credit him for that side of his work. People rarely credit anything these days, perhaps there are simply too few people left to give credit? And the few that might come our way are actively discouraged because much of the software is still commercial. > The whole preservation thing has revolved around trying to keep copies of as > many QL softwares as possible ready for the day when the authors take the > same attitude as you (it can't be released unless there are copies - most of > the authors Rich managed to contact had no copies of their own software to > offer us). And you really think that people who didn't even care enough to keep a copy of their OWN software would try prosecuting somebody for putting it online? > If the authors persist in trying to keep programs commercial, > however futile it might seem, that's their right I suppose, but without the > huge effort people like Rich have put in there would be no copies of the > software to make available anyway. The thing hit the fan when somebody send take-down notices to a site that has actually put copies for everybody to use on the internet. So we're left with less copies than there were before. > Your email is understandably aimed at authors. Please bear in mind > the rough treatment Rich Mellor has had from some quarters for > nothing more than trying to keep some form of QL trading going. I'm all for trading in new things. Creating hardware or new software for example is commendable and must be rewarded financially. I myself have a replacement membrane in my QL and that cannot be lauded enough. I have personally bought a QL-SD, even though I don't really use my QL at all. But 30 years old software? Sorry, this doesn't fly with me. Marcel _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List
