On Jan 22, 2006, at 4:19 AM, Mathewson wrote:
Recently I had an interesting correspondence with a lawyer
in the US stimulated by my earlier posting re Apple and
Hypercard.
The reasons behind my previous posting were:
...
sincerely, Richmond Mathewson
This is off-topic and massively embarrassing to me personally but I
feel I need to apologize to the list as I'm the dimwitted lawyer that
this turkey is referring to. In mitigation, I was trying to help out
someone who I thought was acting in good faith, not some ass from a
banana republic who wants to promote software piracy in a developers
group. I certainly never suggested to him that should he offer to
distribute HC for free on the internet that it would be legal much
less morally OK. Just to make the record clear (after all I am a
lawyer :)), I offer the following and then I will drop this
conversation altogether.
Mathewson wrote the list asking about whether HC had become
"abandonware." I assumed he was asking the question in good faith
but as this has been discussed ad nauseum here and in related forums,
I answered him off list, clearly and unambiguously stating
there is no such thing as "abandonware" and Apple still
holds the copyright to HC which they are actively
protecting. They are doing so because HC contains
technology that Apple is apparently still using or
intending to use and which they do not wish to put into
the public domain.
He replied privately saying:
Thank you very much for your message: although it does not
excite me I thought that was the case. Presumably then, it
would be illegal for me to send a copy of my licensed
version of Hypercard to a friend?
For right or wrong, I took this to be a real question from someone
trying to do the right thing. My reply contained the disclaimers he
mentions, specifically that a) despite being a lawyer, we had no
attorney/client relationship and so he should not consider what I was
saying as legal advice, and b) that I had no particular expertise in
intellectual property law so he should take my comments as being for
"educational purposes only." With that, what I said was that if he
"privately" gave a copy to a friend, Apple wasn't going to do
anything about it, that as Apple wasn't even selling the product
anymore, their concern would be anyone who openly and notoriously
copied it "such as putting it up for download on their web site or
publicly offering to sell copies" as such activities could impact
their rights in the code. I finished with
Yes, it is technically illegal to make the copy and as a programmer
I suppose we should be telling you not to do it but as you can't
buy the product and normally I'm pretty hostile to illegal copying
but it's really hard to get too wrapped up about this.
Beyond the lousy grammar, I did not in any way suggest, or at least
didn't mean to suggest, that making a private copy for a friend would
include publicly offering to copy for everyone on the internet who
asked because after all aren't we all "friends." Apple legally owns
the rights to HC and they can do with it what they want whether some
yahoo in Bulgaria (or Minnesota for that matter) thinks its OK or not.
Again my apologies for wasting the list's time and, if inadvertently,
encouraging this guy. I won't make the same mistake again.
Spence
James P. Spencer
Rochester, MN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Badges?? We don't need no stinkin badges!"
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
