"Abandonware" and copyright [was Re: WinWorld]
drlegendre at gmail.com
Wed Mar 30 23:20:49 CDT 2016
"Claiming that any MSFT product is "abandonware" is absurd. They DO very
You dang well know it. Do you even have any idea just how much of Windows
386 is still in the NT5 / Win10 codebase?! ;-)
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
> On 3/30/16 6:26 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> I have a few ideas of my own.. but for now, I'd like to hear other members
>>> thoughts on the matter. Ultimately, it might necessarily involve bringing
>>> the rights holders and/or publishers over on to "our side".
>> Yes, that's precisely correct. And doing so requires treating each
>> individually as the rightful owner of something we're interested in, and
>> treating that owner with respect rather than dismissal. Fred made that
>> point quite clear also.
> And that process, from personal experience with several large companies
> while working at CHM, takes time and most often someone sympathetic on the
> inside. It took personal lobbying of Steve Jobs by Andy Herztfeld and Bill
> Atkinson to get Apple to release the Macpaint and Quickdraw sources.
> Fortunately, that example has opened up other code from Apple (like the
> Apple DOS sources) that are being made available.
> There are also VERY few examples where we were able to get an agreement
> beyond non-commercial educational use.
> Claiming that any MSFT product is "abandonware" is absurd. They DO very
> much care.
More information about the cctalk