Vintage Software Liscencing

Includes system stuff, productivity, emulation, design, and games for pre-OS X Macs!

Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby onlyonemac » 17 Aug 2012, 16:33

First things first-It is in the forum rules, but let's repeat it here: "Please do not post links to illegal or pirated software".

Having said that, I have been wondering recently about how liscences for old software still apply.

Firstly, for comercial software:

    Are we allowed to make copies, or put them online?
    How about software that has not been freely released by its publishers?
    Or what about "abandonware"-what is it anyway?
    In particular, am I infringing liscences by using Macintosh Garden to download my favourite software? Or do I really have to buy it on ebay?

Secondly, for shareware:

    Are users still obliged to pay the shareware fee? Often, the address is not even valid anymore!
    Is it legal, if anyone has them, to publish or post the registration numbers, so that crippleware can still be enjoyed today?
    Is it OK to post registered shareware, so that users can use it freely?

Sorry if I'm asking for trouble, but I would like to know, as I have found myself using a lot of unregistered shareware long beyond "for evaluation purposes". Post your views and opinions, but, if anyone reads this, please remember that it is their responsability if they infringe software liscences.
Don't hack your Mac...you might as well throw it in the dumpster.
Always on the lookout for cheap/free Macs and Mac goodies-PM me if you've got an offer.

As my username suggests, I only have one mac (Performa 475), but wouldn't mind 50 or so.
User avatar
onlyonemac
 
Joined: 06 Jun 2012, 18:25
Location: Near Chichester, United Kingdom

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby directive0 » 17 Aug 2012, 16:54

I've been wondering about this too, and would like to know what you all think regarding the very precarious nature of old software in this community.

I'm a new comer, to be sure, but even I can see that the use of vintage computers hangs by a very delicate string; the web of different sources of what is essentially deprecated warez. It's a little like being a teenager back in the 1990's, except instead of download a copy of some game my target is an important (and almost IMPOSSIBLE to purchase legally) set of system software or utilities. The difference is that these sources are even HARDER to find now, and there is no guarantee they will be here tomorrow.

I feel bad about it, because back then I had no money to pay for this crap anyways (beyond my allowance, which lets face it was not going towards gamez) but now as an adult (oh jeeze... really?) I actually have the cash to pay and what's more I appreciate the efforts of these bygone programmers and want to show my appreciation.

I have a copy of EV that I want to register, is Ambrosia still taking orders for licenses?
Powermac 7100/80 - 8GB CompactFlash card via AztecMonster, 100Mb RAM, Mac OS 8.5.1, OrangeMicro 486 Card with MS-DOS 6.0, Win 3.1.
User avatar
directive0
 
Joined: 09 May 2012, 18:11
Location: Toronto, Ontario. Canada.

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby krye » 17 Aug 2012, 17:28

If a software vendor doesn't make or support the software anymore, they have in other words "abandoned it". It's always been my belief that you can do what you want with abandonware. Also, if the company no longer exists and the rites were not transfered to someone else, I think you can do what you want with it.

You might download a 25 year old version of PacMan for the Apple II, but technically speaking, Namco still owns PacMan, so you're "stealing". Ridiculous , I know. As if Namco cares you downloaded a 25 years old version for your Apple II.

I think we should be able to exchange serials for software that is no longer supported by the publisher and/or the publisher is no longer in business.

I mean, if I download a 25 year old piece of software, can a software publisher actually argue that they're losing money? It seems unrealistic to think that they would.

When it comes to all this stuff, it's usually one huge gray area. Everyone seems to interpret the law differently, since the laws are usually different from state-to-state, country-to-country. You end up with sites like this that err on the side of caution and ban outright the slightest hint of sharing/linking to 3rd party software.

We love this site and we'd hate to see it "go Megaupload".

@directive0 To your point, you're absolutely right. When I was a kid in the 80s , there was no way we could afford games, etc. We used to trade. I’d get Lode Runner for my birthday and my friend would get Dino Eggs or something and we’d trade copies. Everyone did it. The word “piracy” didn’t even exist. Now that I’m knocking 40, I’ve really been bitten by the vintage Mac bug and have dropped an ungodly amount of money on the hobby of collecting over the past few years.

We’re having so much trouble keeping the computer past of our childhoods alive I fear what it will be like when my kids are 40. Sure, they’ll have their own problems keeping their iPad 15’s going, but it would be nice for them to see where it all began.
IIe, //c, 128K, 512K, Plus, SE, Portable, Classic, Color Classic, LCIII, LC520, Macintosh TV, PM5200, Performa 460, iMac G3, iMac G4, G4 Cube, Blueberry iBook, 14" G3 iBook, Lombard PowerBook, 12" PowerBook G4, Mac Pro, Mac Mini
User avatar
krye
 
Joined: 26 Nov 2008, 16:28
Location: NY, USA

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Anonymous Freak » 17 Aug 2012, 18:28

onlyonemac wrote:
    Are we allowed to make copies, or put them online?
    How about software that has not been freely released by its publishers?
    Or what about "abandonware"-what is it anyway?
    In particular, am I infringing liscences by using Macintosh Garden to download my favourite software? Or do I really have to buy it on ebay?


General rule of thumb is that if the publisher ever made it available for download, you can make it available. For example, the ISO images for Windows 7 are freely available from Microsoft, since it's the license key that matters.
Obviously, any time a publisher has expressly released it for free, you're free to post it however their license allows.
"Abandonware" is not any official thing. At the bluntest, it is the hobbiests' way of justifying piracy.
If you are acquiring paid software (and/or its license) in a format that the publisher did not originally distribute, odds are you're infringing. Although, obviously, if the developer is completely defunct, nobody's going to be around to complain.

onlyonemac wrote:
    Are users still obliged to pay the shareware fee? Often, the address is not even valid anymore!
    Is it legal, if anyone has them, to publish or post the registration numbers, so that crippleware can still be enjoyed today?
    Is it OK to post registered shareware, so that users can use it freely?


Yes, if the terms of use require a shareware fee, you are obligated to pay it to stay within the terms of the license.
No, it is not permissible to share the codes or unlocked versions without the developer's consent. (If you CAN find the developer, just ask. Quite a few in recent years have made their old software freeware, or even open source. Hell, even MacPaint 1.0 now has its source code legally available!)
68k Macs Liberated: ~20
Mac 128 thru iMac (Al - mid 2007)
NeXTstation, SGI Indy, HP Apollo 735, IBM PC & ThinkPad PowerPC
PCjr thru dual Xeon W5580 & quad Itanium 9150M.

- Machine list -
User avatar
Anonymous Freak
 
Joined: 27 Oct 2007, 19:52
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby directive0 » 17 Aug 2012, 18:43

I get why developers of software from defunct companies might not be comfortable with releasing their old software. If not purchasable, it is still by and large intellectual property. The solutions are simple once you finally arrive at them, but getting there is the part that is actually difficult and these folks did that hard work long ago.

Whether or not the rest of the world has moved on, the first person to arrive at the realization that one and one equals two probably found it a challenge to finally prove and adapt as an idea into something productive. I'm not sure I want to spend the rest of my life paying for that idea and legwork, but I do appreciate that it was the basis for a whole number of logical functions that I use daily and I don't just want to take that idea without providing its progenitor with the appropriate compensation, and for some that may be as simple as a thank you.

I like to hear that older software has been released from consumer limbo, personally I have gotten in touch with Ray Dunakin to see what he thought about me distributing and playing his world builder games, and he was pretty cool with it (but imo he's a pretty cool dude anyhow). I will continue to email developers when I can and tell them how much their old software means to me, maybe small gestures like that will help? Newbie naivety?

I was sitting at my desk last night downloading some old 3d software I used to covet, I would read the reviews in MacAddict for some of this stuff and having it there in front of me for the first time was a really moving experience. The power of software to turn simple PPC into a window into an imaginary reality is incredible and without that software it's little more than a large biege paperweight.
Powermac 7100/80 - 8GB CompactFlash card via AztecMonster, 100Mb RAM, Mac OS 8.5.1, OrangeMicro 486 Card with MS-DOS 6.0, Win 3.1.
User avatar
directive0
 
Joined: 09 May 2012, 18:11
Location: Toronto, Ontario. Canada.

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Emehr » 17 Aug 2012, 19:09

In a reasonable world, this would be the rule: If the original author/publisher is no longer supporting the software for a certain hardware configuration (practical or commercially emulated), then it is considered abandoned. Share and enjoy.

Example: Photoshop for Intel Macs running Mac OS X is currently maintained by Adobe. Purchase it. Support the publisher. However, Photoshop for PowerPC Macs running Mac OS 9 and earlier are not supported by Adobe. Sharing this particular configuration of the software will not affect Adobe. They are not actively developing or supporting it.

The main question to ask is this: Would the original author be financially affected if the software is copied and shared? If the answer is "Yes", then do not copy and share. Buy it. Register the shareware. Support the author. If the address in the 'Read Me' is obsolete, Google the author's name and try and see if he or she is still developing.

As for the Pac-Man example, the above "rules" would allow sharing of Pac-Man game programs on unsupported hardware. Does that mean the user has a legal claim to the Pac-Man IP? Of course not. That's not the implication at all. However, usage of the game program on obsolete hardware isn't going to affect Namco's bottom line. Pac-Man for the Atari 8-bit computers, for example, is dead to them. They have no further financial stake in it.

*This is coming from someone with a hobbyist programming background and who purchases physical copies of old, unsupported software, including Adobe products. Hey, I like physical media!
Emehr
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2009, 01:50

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby LCGuy » 18 Aug 2012, 00:53

Anonymous Freak has pretty much covered it. "Abandonware" has no legal status - in the eyes of the law, its piracy. Having a dodgy copy of Pac-Man for the Apple II is still very much the exact same thing as pirating say, Diablo III.

Unless the developer has made the software available for free since it was sold (as in the case of System 7.5.3 and Cliff Johnson's games), by downloading it, getting a serial, etc when you don't have a license for it, you are still violating the terms of the EULA just as you would be for current software. Yes, you do have to buy it on eBay, or in a thrift shop, or whatever.
"Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like all Hell" - Peter Brock
User avatar
LCGuy
LC Doctor/Hot Rodder
 
Joined: 02 May 2007, 00:52
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Trash80toHP_Mini » 18 Aug 2012, 02:23

The problem with buying software on eBay is that having the media, the entire documentation set, the registration card with the key printed on it AND the freakin' box that held the shrinkwrap at bay, does NOT make it a legal copy if any previous owner is using the key with the same or an upgraded version of the product . . . who KNOWS?

When it comes to the law, making a good faith attempt at being legal won't help you one little bit, ignorance of the law . . . or the situation . . . is no excuse.

We've gotta draw the line somewhere on this absurdity, at least for the MLA, and that's as good a place as any. If you bought the original media an eBay . . . you're licensed . . .
. . . sorta. :-/

Personally (NOT as a mod) I'm so outraged that Adobe said they couldn't (be bothered if you ask me) send me replacement AI9 upgrade media because they didn't have a copy of the software, but they had the records of my purchase and admitted to having shipped it to me, that . . .

. . . it wouldn't bother me one little bit if everybody and their brother ripped off eight different versions of Illustrator and Photoshop apiece . . . just do it elsewhere!

I know it's illegal as hell and I refuse to run ANY version of Photoshop for other reasons . . .
. . . but it'll make me feel a lot better if some other folks do so . . . >:(<
User avatar
Trash80toHP_Mini
NIGHT STALKER
 
Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 02:23
Location: Bermuda Triangle, NC, USA

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Scott Baret » 18 Aug 2012, 04:08

A software license thread and I'm not involved yet? :o

I think everything that needs to be said in this discussion is already out there. However, to piggyback on what Trash has to say, read the "transfer of license" section in your EULA. If you transfer the media, license, and supporting documents, you give up your right to use the software and need to get rid of any additional copies you may have. This not only counts backups, but also whatever you may have installed. If you transfer the license, your copies are now the ones which are illegal. The guy who buys your software has the license now.

Think of it as transferring a house to someone. You give the new owner the right to live in that house, pass him your property deed, and turn over all keys and related materials. If you keep a key and use it, you break into his house, which is no longer yours. The key should be destroyed or transferred.
"Education is life."
User avatar
Scott Baret
 
Joined: 02 May 2007, 04:45
Location: Fort Mill, SC

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby LCGuy » 18 Aug 2012, 05:48

Furthermore, in the case of upgrade media (as jt mentioned earlier), even if the previous owner is still using the key with an upgrade, technically its them who is breaking the law, not you, as the license usually goes with the original version, not the upgraded version. For example, my PC originally came with Windows Vista. I purchased the Windows 7 Upgrade and upgraded it from Vista to 7. Now, lets pretend that my copy of Vista is actually a retail copy (its actually OEM), which would give me the right to sell it seperately from the PC, and I decided to do that, since I don't need it, now that I'm running 7. Two different "copies", with two different Product Keys even. However, my copy of Windows 7 is simply an upgrade for my old copy of Vista. The two copies are still under the same license - the original Vista license. By selling that copy of Vista to someone else, I would be giving up my right to use my Windows 7 upgrade.
"Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like all Hell" - Peter Brock
User avatar
LCGuy
LC Doctor/Hot Rodder
 
Joined: 02 May 2007, 00:52
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby uniserver » 18 Aug 2012, 15:14

That's why I haven't nuked the hard drives on these school machines I have, They have 9.22 / 2001 office /.tons of Educational software, Some games , Even iTunes loaded
Up with around 700mb of mp3s, from some apple/iTunes mp3 give a way sampler cd thing, If I sell computer as is, and someone tries to get me, they need to call up Troy schools and have their beef with them.
#I Can Re-Cap Your Board/PSU# (iAmCapsMack@gmail.com) or (maccaps.com) Link---->
Need: 840av, IIfx, *Portable Mainboard, Portable Parts pm-me please*
Fav's: SE/30-FIXD, LC575 Full 040@33mhz /w 1G-HD, IIsi-oc'd-29-mhz, PM 6100-oc'd 90mhz, Color Classic /wLC520 mobo
User avatar
uniserver
 
Joined: 12 Dec 2011, 18:51
Location: Southfield, Mi

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby LCGuy » 18 Aug 2012, 23:51

Though technically since you're selling the machines, its your responsibility to make sure that all the software on those machines is licensed properly. Hence why most ex-corporate machines that are sold either have the drives formatted with no OS, or just a basic Windows install with nothing else.
"Bite off more than you can chew and then chew like all Hell" - Peter Brock
User avatar
LCGuy
LC Doctor/Hot Rodder
 
Joined: 02 May 2007, 00:52
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby BlastoiseBlue » 19 Aug 2012, 01:43

Personally, I think the whole thing is ridiculous. IMHO, as long as they no longer sell it, you should be able to download it free as you wish, upon other reasons because some of us have partners who don't like for us to drop hundreds of dollars on old hardware, god forbid old software. If I want Test Drive 2 then by god I'm gonna' go download Test Drive 2, I'm not harming Accolade in any way by doing so and I'd rather not have to track down the base game, supercars expansion pack and California Challenge expansion pack. Though I will admit, holding the real deal in your hands has an air of accomplishment unfelt in any other situation.
Thinkpad T61p, Packard-Bell LEGEND
BlastoiseBlue
 
Joined: 20 Jun 2012, 01:53

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Emehr » 19 Aug 2012, 15:59

Yep, try as I might I cannot think of any situation where copying unsupported software for unsupported hardware harms the original publisher. It may be wrong legally, but practically it's a victimless crime.
Emehr
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2009, 01:50

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Cory5412 » 22 Aug 2012, 02:47

Just a few quick notes...

It may look like a victimless crime, and really, there are situations where it is. But that doesn't make it any less legal, and if something were to happen like an errant copy of Photoshop 3 LE were to end up in http://68kmla.org/~coryw/ somewhere, or anywhere on the forum, then I would still be liable and Adobe would have every bit as much right to sue my face off, as they would if I were pressing physical pirated copies of Photosh[url][/url]op $CURRENT_VERSION and selling them for money.

The whole thing is about context, and a big important thing ot note is that it's not necessarily adviseable for us to all start running old (pirated or not) copies of various pieces of software in professional roles, or to advocate that on a large scale.

It's one thing if a few children on an Internet forum don't buy it -- it's another if the whole "abandonware" movement gains traction, especially in, say, [urlhttp://lowendmac.com/myturn/2k0615.html]the form that Knez describes it[/url], where software companies would need to start providing support for software after either a certain number of years, or one or two major versions.

These days, that means that Adobe CS3 and CS4 would be fair game, presuming Adobe took the "number of versions" route. This could actually kill Adobe. Plus, some of the stuff that comes in new software versions is actually useful, and I would hate to have to say to someone, "oh, sorry, there won't ever be a new version of X, because all of X's users abandoned the idea of ever paying for it again, because the five year old version "worked just fine." -- It sounds like hyperbole, but you just KNOW that there's a healthy contingent of (let's just say...) Microsoft's customer base who would totally run back to Office 2003 on Windows XP hanging off of Windows 2000/2003 domain controllers running Exchange'03. Microsoft can take the hit, Adobe probably could, Apple almost certainly could -- but could Panic or Omni Group? Each of these companies sells various pieces of software, and has almost certainly talked about tight financial times on their blogs. They're doing well today, but in a universe where OmniGraffle 3 is free, and you can convince everyone you need to work with to have OmniGraffle 3 on hand -- OmniGraffle6 is unlikely ever to exist, purely because there's suddenly no money in creating commercial software at all.

The idea is nice in that romantic "look, I have all of the software!" way, but let's look at it another way -- having a 68k Mac (or even many PowerPC Macs) completely loaded with era-appropriate software is incredibly unrealistic, experience-wise. When the $10,000 or so Mac IIfx was new, the average administrative assistant probably pulled in $12,000 or so (if I'm remembering correctly), and the rule of computing was that the more expensive your computer was, the fewer pieces of software it had. Expensive machines of the time were very much single-purpose. Your computer was there to collect data off an instrument, or run calculations, or host a database, or host e-mail, not be an email server, run Excel, browse FaceBook, and play a game or do chatting all at once.

The big question is whether or not any of these companies (smaller ones, especially) would transition to an open source software model in an effort ot make their operations more lean and find different ways of making money from software. Support contracts and selling end user support (for "unsupported" versions) could potentially be a big way to make money in an industry whose biggest profit center has been taken away.

Or, the whole thing could be hyperbole and the only effect could be that it's now legal to put PhotoShop 5 on your PM6100.

The other noteworthy thing is that it is NOT true that something a company posts online for free can be re-posted without repercussions. Microsoft has licensed Microsoft to post the Windows 7 ISO on the Internet for free. Microsoft has NOT licensed you or megaupload to post the Windows 7 ISO on the Internet for free.
Cory5412
General
 
Joined: 02 May 2007, 02:13
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby olePigeon » 04 Sep 2012, 05:06

Copyright on vintage software is a a gray area. The Library of Congress issued an exemption to the DMCA in regards to vintage software. You're allowed to crate an archive of abandonware, including ways to circumvent copy protection. However, the definition of what constitutes as an "archive" and "abandonware" is rather dubious.

Wikipedia has a good section on the legality of distributing vintage software. Basically, the exemption to the DMCA that enables copying and archiving vintage software is untested. Fortunately, there are no companies (as far as I know) that have filed any DMCA takedown notices for any of the popular abandonware sights (Underdogs, Abandonia, etc.)
User avatar
olePigeon
 
Joined: 26 Aug 2009, 18:55

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby phreakout » 04 Sep 2012, 09:44

I'll throw my 2 bits in on this:

I'm not sure what the laws state outside of the US, but over here it doesn't matter if it's pictures, movies, music or software, they all fall under copyright law. It doesn't matter how old or how abandoned it becomes, the creators and distributors still hold the rights for ownership. But some people argue that they purchased a copy, therefore they have every right to do as they please with that copy, hence the so-called "fair-use" policy. To the creators and distributors, it doesn't matter; fair-use doesn't apply. As long as the licensing and distribution rights are kept active, it shows who is in control.

I have felt that this is very unfair to the purchaser for a long time. We who buy the content should be allowed to do as we please, even if it means making backup copies. But the distributors all fear that if fair-use is granted, some people may make a load of unauthorized copies, lay out a blanket on the front lawn and sell them to others for a price, aka piracy. Of course, this is a bit absurd and I can only imagine a very small number of those who would ruin it for us all.

As far as software goes, I believe it's at least reasonable that after 25 years or so, it can be made freeware. At what percentage of people actually run and use 25 year old programs? Not many.

But follow the laws we must. Read the EULA included with each piece of software and follow it word for word. Until someone comes along and says enough with the draconian laws in place, we have to prevent becoming a liability.

73s de Phreakout. :rambo:
Walking down the street,
The leaves crunch beneath my feet,
Hey, look! An SE!
"Can't you just blow up a couple of PCs to keep the Mac God happy?" - jsarchibald
User avatar
phreakout
 
Joined: 07 May 2007, 05:26
Location: In Hell on Earth (MI)

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Dennis Nedry » 04 Sep 2012, 18:47

One definite workaround is to write new software and release it under a free software license such as GPL. From what I understand, it is even perfectly legal to reverse engineer file formats which allows, for example, Open Office to legally read and write real Microsoft Office documents.

Strictly for personal use, you can likely get away with using actual unlicensed software on ancient computers. For distribution or commercial/professional use - it is perfectly reasonable to make the investment in producing your own version of the software. It may even be possible to start with modern code that's freely available and port it backwards to Mac OS 9, 8, 7, 6, etc.
Dennis Nedry's 68kMLA Wiki Userpage, including my extensive Mac collection.
Dennis Nedry was an awesome Mac hacker, but I hack Macs in his name to preserve, not to destroy.
User avatar
Dennis Nedry
 
Joined: 22 Jul 2008, 15:32
Location: Jurassic Park Visitor Center

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby directive0 » 05 Sep 2012, 15:00

Is there any software for Mac OS 1-8 that was written recently?
Powermac 7100/80 - 8GB CompactFlash card via AztecMonster, 100Mb RAM, Mac OS 8.5.1, OrangeMicro 486 Card with MS-DOS 6.0, Win 3.1.
User avatar
directive0
 
Joined: 09 May 2012, 18:11
Location: Toronto, Ontario. Canada.

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Cory5412 » 05 Sep 2012, 16:02

olePigeon wrote:You're allowed to crate an archive of abandonware, including ways to circumvent copy protection. However, the definition of what constitutes as an "archive" and "abandonware" is rather dubious.


It's interesting that the Library of Congress would say something like that given that there's no legal concept of "abandonware." -- Unless I missed some very recent developments.

phreakout wrote:even if it means making backup copies


Many EULAs back in the day encouraged making backup copies of software, and this is a practice I still hold today with my modern software. (Most of which ends up on a network share in my home, and that server gets backed up.) Most software vendors don't really care if you have a second copy of the installer, so long as you don't...

phreakout wrote: make a load of unauthorized copies, lay out a blanket on the front lawn and sell them to others for a price, aka piracy


But arguably even transmitting "backup" copies to other unlicensed parties over the Internet (free of charge) and letting them use it (with your serial/authorization, or with one they found or invented) is still illegal and still piracy.

Dennis Nedry wrote: it is perfectly reasonable to make the investment in producing your own version of the software


One of the most woeful things about the Classic Mac OS scene is that we've got a lot fewer good hobbyist programmers (like Cameron and tenfourfox, for example) than some of the other platforms like IRIX and Solaris have. Part of this is the intent of the whole platform. The Mac, when it was new, was made for writing letters and balancing checkbooks -- not really for hobbyist programming usage. Another part of this is the architecture of the software on old Macs. It's easy to write and compile a new version of libwhatever.so on IRIX and then replace the system file with it. The whole thing is UNIX95 (or UNIX98, I forget) and POSIX compliant, and is fairly predictable. Firefox may not have stayed up to date on that platform, but a lot of other stuff has.

Of course, that also presumes anybody has a commercial interest in the continued running of a 68k Mac. I'd be interested in hearing/seeing more about it if this was true.

Dennis Nedry wrote:Strictly for personal use, you can likely get away with using actual unlicensed software on ancient computers.


I'm not going to tell if you don't, but just because I agree that this is probably okay doesn't mean we can use the site to transfer those files. (I know you're all aware of this, go with me here for a moment.) ALthough in a world where we could (Let's say copyright law was suddenly and extremely changed to match Knez' suggestion in some way. How would that all be cataloged and distributed, and who would be responsible for it? Archiving is something that it turns out few people on a scene really agree on. Although I personally think the act of archiving and organizing information is really interesting. Like, information organization is one of the reasons I like computers so much, so it'll be interesting to see how that shakes down, should a version of the universe where we can do that manifest itself.
Cory5412
General
 
Joined: 02 May 2007, 02:13
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Cory5412 » 05 Sep 2012, 18:40

Cory5412 wrote: Knez' suggestion i



I have received intelligence that I am using the wrong name. I'm supposed to say "Theresa Knezek" as "Knez" and "Theresa Knezek" are different but very similarly named individuals.
Cory5412
General
 
Joined: 02 May 2007, 02:13
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Vintage Software Licensing

Postby phreakout » 05 Sep 2012, 19:36

I agree with what Theresa is trying to say, but on one condition. In the paragraph that starts out, "The publishers would retain all copyrights to the products,...", I would eliminate the second and third sentences. I say this because we don't want to limit distribution rights, whether you're the author or an authorized archivist. What would be the point of archiving if you can't have the freedom to distribute as many copies as you want to as many people as you'd like?

The authors, publishers and shareholders in that piece of software have already taken a write-off whenever a title and version number are discontinued, even if they didn't make enough profit off of that product. They want to wash their hands of it and not be burdened by something that old. I say it's much easier to say make that software free to distribute and let everyone else sort it out. The archivists acquire their copy, which then get distributed freely amongst others.

In a way, the title may as well be issued a GPL and considered freeware-unsupported by the original owners. But in the meantime, until someone wakes up and realizes this, I will continue to freely archive and distribute my resources to those who ask kindly of it. I don't want to make a profit for my efforts and any profit I could make would go towards funding the costs of blank media (floppies, CDs, DVDs, etc.). As long as the demand is still there, I will continue to do so. I like helping out and also like collecting. But what's the point if I can't have the freedom of ownership?

73s de Phreakout. :rambo:
Walking down the street,
The leaves crunch beneath my feet,
Hey, look! An SE!
"Can't you just blow up a couple of PCs to keep the Mac God happy?" - jsarchibald
User avatar
phreakout
 
Joined: 07 May 2007, 05:26
Location: In Hell on Earth (MI)

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Trash80toHP_Mini » 06 Sep 2012, 03:36

A little point to clear up about backup copies:

AFAIK, the courts have ALWAYS supported the individual's right to make a backup copy of ANY copyrighted material distributed on any kind of media. The reason that companies were able to code and distribute programs like Copy II+ over the objections of software, movie and music distribution companies was this very principal.

I laugh every time I pop one of my old VHS tapes into the player and see the idiotic claim that he quality of the product was protected by MacroVision. Such copy protection schemes, when they worked for any appreciable period of time at all, protected ONLY the distributor's revenue stream.

That changed at some point, apparently . . .

Anybody remember the Big Brother Chips that were supposed to go into all televisions . . .

Computer years are like dog years, 25 years is way too long a lead time for copyrighted code to enter the public domain.

As Thomas Jefferson said, copyright is a necessary evil for a free society. He meant copyright to protect an author's right to make a reasonable profit from his work for a strictly limited period of time, certainly not for that period to be extended long enough for his heirs to make a living from his work.

Whatever . . .
User avatar
Trash80toHP_Mini
NIGHT STALKER
 
Joined: 04 Apr 2009, 02:23
Location: Bermuda Triangle, NC, USA

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby Emehr » 06 Sep 2012, 17:18

This is kinda long so bear with me. I'm digesting some of the responses in this thread so far.

Here's what I propose: I think a distinction needs to be made between art copyright (books, music, film, comics, etc.) and software copyright (applications, games, utilities, operating systems, etc.).

Without getting into the debate of "is software art?" I think it's reasonable to state that art in this sense is a piece of work that is not necessarily tied to the digital format (e.g. print can exist on paper, stone tablet, my forehead, etc.; music can exist as a live performance, on wax cylinder, vinyl, tape, etc.; film can exist on celluloid, tape, a flip-book, etc.). In other words, art is created and meant to be enjoyed no matter what medium it exists on and has a longer financial shelf life for the author. It can be enjoyed for many generations and is easily transferable to new mediums as needed.

Software, on the other hand, must grow with the hardware industry. It is always digital and it always has a small window of shelf-life for the author. By this I mean it must constantly be upgraded to keep up with industry hardware changes. With changing hardware, operating systems, and API's, old versions are quickly made obsolete. Art is dependent on none of these things. Version 1 of any piece of software written in 1988 is certainly not going to share much code with it's namesake written in the present. Company A made all the profit they possibly could with Version 1 of their software in 1988 and has since moved on. That particular piece of software is just a relic and a footnote in the company's history. They have no further stake in it. It is obsolete and will not run in anything save for a virtual environment or some guy's basement who happens to have the particular piece of 1988 hardware that was meant to run it.

Quick note: I'm going to use the term "sharing" instead of "copying". Copying something is meaningless. I can have 50 copies of Photoshop 6 on a hard disk. If I never use it and bury it in my backyard it's essentially worthless. Each copy could not possibly equate to lost revenue on the author's part. Sharing, on the other hand, implies that it is now in another person's hands and they can now access and use the software. Anyway...

My point is, software copyright should have a much shorter lifespan than copyright for the arts. In fact, it shouldn't even be in the same league, IMO. Obsolete hardware and the number of users operating it shrinks smaller and smaller every year. With art, the audience can only grow. Allowing the free sharing of obsolete software for the obsolete hardware it was created for should not be the huge ordeal it's made out to be.

This is not to say that the companies who authored this obsolete software should have to provide any warranty or technical support. The users are completely on their own. This should go without saying. This also doesn't presume that recent versions of software (e.g. Photoshop CS3) should be released freely. Discontinued does not necessarily mean obsolete. If there exists a significant user base for a piece of software then it should certainly be protected.

So, how many years should a software copyright last? Who says it has to be a set number of years? There is no crystal ball that determines when hardware becomes obsolete and in the hands of the few collectors and hobbyists. Software copyright should last as long as it is marketable. Simple as that, right?
Emehr
 
Joined: 09 Jul 2009, 01:50

Re: Vintage Software Liscencing

Postby KC13 » 28 Nov 2012, 16:11

I have a legal copy of PageMaker for early Macs. The disks are wonky now. I emailed Adobe (the current owner of the product) and was told there was no way at all to get either disks or support of any kind. Would I be considered a pirate if I could find a site to download copies of what I legally purchased and the publisher has declined to support?
My Macs

733MHz Digital Audio G4 (Sans mouse, keyboard and monitor, but working on it!)
33MHz PowerBook 180 (Currently indisposed - Read: Dead)
KC13
 
Joined: 10 May 2008, 18:39
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Next

Return to Software

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests