on 9/7/01 10:01 PM, McComb Keith at KMcComb_at_nycboe.net wrote:
> Stop paying taxes on "your" land, and see how long it remains yours.
> Have a piece of property where the local government REALLY wants to put
> something that will make them money, and see how fast "Eminent Domain"
> gets declared. (It's happened time and time again.)
>
> Since the government can take your property for non-payment of taxes,
> then it strikes me that the taxes are actually your payment of rent to
> the government for the right to do what you want to 'your' property.
Bingo!!
However, we are getting a bit off topic here. Can I try to bring this back
on topic, and maybe we can start wrapping this up, and maybe come to a
consensus. (not!) If not in concepts, then maybe in practice?
The truth is, nothing really lasts forever. You have property, in 100 years,
they build a land fill next to it, or a factory, and there goes your
property value, or maybe the govenment takes it for a "reserve" and your
property has even less value.
The only things that really last are precious metals (gold, silver, itd) and
precious stones (diamonds, rubies, itd). Everything else fades corrodes,
corrupts, rusts, itd. Even worse, ideas grow old _really_ fast. I remember
reading that Voltaire said something to the effect that in a hundred years,
his ideas would be universally accepted (don't quote me on that, I'm going
from a very weak memory) :-) but ask any kid to day who Voltaire was, and
you'll get a blank stare. Or, even better, who's ever heard of the Bay City
Rockers? Remember their plaid cuffs? Talk about "dated" and "out of date"
(or at least I sure _hope_ they are still perceived this way!!!)
Ideas do run their course, even as the Newton idea has run its
course--mabye. Although its ideas have fawned a massive PDA market, you see
little of its actual innovation being used. BTW, this was done without a
single patent or copyright infringement. In fact, the Macintosh was built on
others' ideas without infraction.
My point being, that we need to be careful about the extremes, either too
long, or too short. I think someone else mentioned Shakespeare's works.
Imagine how much this world would be missing today if his works weren't
"public" property. On the other hand, you have the other extreme, where
private property does not exist, and look at the results. (Zimbabwe was the
illustration, I believe) The sad part of that is that those poor "veterans"
have no idea that, since the landowners' ownership of property wasn't
respected, neither will their ownership be valued. In fact, you could argue
that they don't even value it themselves.
But, I digress (please, no replies to anything I've just written. I'm trying
to summarize all that has been said)
The point is, how does this all relate to "abandonware"? Ah, there is the
rub. Here we have software, for which the original copyright holder has
either disappeared, or has shown a complete disinterest in his own software,
"disinterest" meaning that he no longer wishes to sell it, and apparently,
doesn't wish to release to the public.
What do we, as a "community" of Newton users do, as a community. Of course,
we could create our own police force to crack down on sites and individuals
that pirate and pass on software that they shouldn't, but, since we are not
a proper community in the sense that a town or city or state or country is,
we can forego this route. :-) What we are after is something that web site
owners can, in good conscience, collect this software and distribute it, and
the community in general, and NTLK in particular can support, again, in good
conscience.
Am I right? I thought so. :-)
So, with that in mind, I put forth my own proposal.
Since there does exist something called copyright law, and since, as a
community, we wish to be law abiding, we need to be careful about what we
do. So, my first proposal start with this.
1. Whatever we do, we need to make sure we are as close to the law as
possible.
2. In keeping with that, if a software developer expressely states that they
do not wish to sell or give their software away for any reason, this should
be honored. I believe that Iambic's software falls in this catagory. I for
one, am not eager for us to begin giving away the codes and files for free
use--even though I am sorely tempted myself to get the PaperPack set for my
own use. I won't. In fact, since I paid over $50 for the privilege of owning
Action Names, it kind of bugs me that people are around giving this stuff to
each other for free. You who are doing this aren't merely getting back at
Iambic, but you are making a mockery of those of us who paid for it. If you
want it, buy it off of eBay, and prove that you legitimately want it.
3. I think we are all in favor of going to reasonable _extremes_ to find
phantom developers. Actually, I've been surprised at the lengths some of you
have gone through to merely find some of these people. :-) You are a credit
to the Newton community.
4. In the case that a software developer cannot be found, or is found to no
longer exist, then I think that any use of that software should be accepted
to be conditional. In other words, if the owner is found, and, in the end,
does not wish to allow his software to be distributed, then his wishes in
the end should be honored. This is probably the hardest of all to accept. I
for one, find it difficult enough to write. :-)
5. Every effort and offer to software developers should maybe include
assurances that their software:
a. will not be modified in function,
b. their copyrights will be kept, and proper credit given,
c. and lastly, that their software will not be sold, nor permitted to
be placed on compilations that may be sold.
I think this last point is important. I, for one, would not want to release
my software, only to find that someone else is selling it. I think that this
is probably one of the biggest reasons that companies do not release their
software to the public. The other reason I can think of is that their
software contains code that they want to reserve for other purposes, and
they don't want older software out there, tempting imitators. I guess there
is also the thinking that this old software may be competing with their
current offerings. Iambic comes to mind.
It might be good if someone, Eric, for example, who has already volunteered,
to write up a general proposal, such as I have mentioned above, for what any
web sites related to NewtonTalk would do to protect the original copyright
owners rights, as an incentive to get them to allow their software to be
made available. We are, after all, dealing with people. People can be
naturally suspicious when approached by strangers with strange motives. :-)
We need to do what we can to allay those fears.
Well, those are my proposals, and they are far from complete. Let's bring
the discussion back on topic, and push this to some workable solution. I'm
willing to help with the pushing. Anyone else?
-- -Jon Glass Krakow, Poland <jonglass_at_usa.net> <glasshaus5_at_aol.com>"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 12:01:37 EDT