Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #37705 > unrolled thread

Abandonware should fall back into the public domain

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Abandonware should fall back into the public domain "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2017-11-30 06:27 -0800
    Re: Abandonware should fall back into the public domain Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2017-11-30 22:18 -0500
      Re: Abandonware should fall back into the public domain Rick C Hodgin <rickchodginjesus@gmail.com> - 2017-12-03 09:36 -0800
      Re: Abandonware should fall back into the public domain Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-12-03 19:48 -0500

#37705 — Abandonware should fall back into the public domain

As the years go by and more and more previously commercial (and even
open source) software makes the move into abandonware, where the original
copyright and/or patent holder is no longer maintaining or developing the
software ... my view is it should move into the area of the public domain,
legally protected for any use at that point, with all restrictions on use
rights completely removed, allowing binary deconstruction, reverse
engineering, machine code extraction, essentially use for any purpose.

It makes no sense that abandonware should not receive a legal standing,
such that any person or company who approaches it for use is actually
protected under the law.  They should have that protection.  The use of
that pre-existing tool should be at their disposal when the entity who
originally held rights to it walks away.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#37707

On 11/30/17 9:27 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> As the years go by and more and more previously commercial (and even
> open source) software makes the move into abandonware, where the original
> copyright and/or patent holder is no longer maintaining or developing the
> software ... my view is it should move into the area of the public domain,
> legally protected for any use at that point, with all restrictions on use
> rights completely removed, allowing binary deconstruction, reverse
> engineering, machine code extraction, essentially use for any purpose.
> 
> It makes no sense that abandonware should not receive a legal standing,
> such that any person or company who approaches it for use is actually
> protected under the law.  They should have that protection.  The use of
> that pre-existing tool should be at their disposal when the entity who
> originally held rights to it walks away.
> 

One problem is that the author of the program may not have the right to 
give you those abilities. Say for instance you buy program X from 
company Y, under licensing rules Z (including perhaps an exchange of 
money). What you might not know is that company Y in producing program 
X, included software package A from company B, under rules C, which are 
reflected in some of the rules Z.

The fact that company Y has abandoned X, in no way relieves them from 
rules C, which they passed on to you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37710

On Friday, December 1, 2017 at 11:18:36 AM UTC+8, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/30/17 9:27 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > As the years go by and more and more previously commercial (and even
> > open source) software makes the move into abandonware, where the original
> > copyright and/or patent holder is no longer maintaining or developing the
> > software ... my view is it should move into the area of the public domain,
> > legally protected for any use at that point, with all restrictions on use
> > rights completely removed, allowing binary deconstruction, reverse
> > engineering, machine code extraction, essentially use for any purpose.
> > 
> > It makes no sense that abandonware should not receive a legal standing,
> > such that any person or company who approaches it for use is actually
> > protected under the law.  They should have that protection.  The use of
> > that pre-existing tool should be at their disposal when the entity who
> > originally held rights to it walks away.
> > 
> 
> One problem is that the author of the program may not have the right to 
> give you those abilities. Say for instance you buy program X from 
> company Y, under licensing rules Z (including perhaps an exchange of 
> money). What you might not know is that company Y in producing program 
> X, included software package A from company B, under rules C, which are 
> reflected in some of the rules Z.
> 
> The fact that company Y has abandoned X, in no way relieves them from 
> rules C, which they passed on to you.

Rick C Hodgin is a fucking asshole and keep spamming different newgroups. Below are his spamming posts. Please don't reply to any of his post. You can ask him to see if he admits he is the fucking OP of these posts or not.

​
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/YhKZSh8Bf9M
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/h7zKOJzfgTs
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/onsW08u4DJw
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/xHPZCyjB56g
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/npmk4Nk2VVc
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/RicHLMFd-_w
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/ZnKID47exCQ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/St6qH-lfmrE
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/VwXVx4iNcV0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/C1MnAr6Gg6M
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/s05NYCByEDo
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/yfbPzexXq6I
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/ecPfEv46FR8
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/wVPjnQt258k
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/wfqKlG6b99s
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.os.development/8AXHrhxTxB8
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.os.development/rick$20c.$20hodgin%7Csort:date/alt.os.development/jwXzkJ4xGzQ/x83hOggKBQAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.os.development/rick$20c.$20hodgin%7Csort:date/alt.os.development/wfqKlG6b99s/u6jgWbufCAAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.os.development/rick$20c.$20hodgin%7Csort:date/alt.os.development/q18l8TTpn-w/z0HGA245BwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.os.development/rick$20c.$20hodgin%7Csort:date/alt.os.development/s05NYCByEDo/nRWzXsLhAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.os.development/rick$20c.$20hodgin%7Csort:date/alt.os.development/Ta8WZTvm4OA/c6L6dtZoDAAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.os.development/rick$20c.$20hodgin%7Csort:date/alt.os.development/_1-JScZfkkA/pwnKv-PDAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.os.development/rick$20c.$20hodgin%7Csort:date/alt.os.development/85uA1PROuSo/91ylowZqAgAJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37711

On 11/30/2017 10:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 11/30/17 9:27 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> As the years go by and more and more previously commercial (and even
>> open source) software makes the move into abandonware, where the original
>> copyright and/or patent holder is no longer maintaining or developing the
>> software ... my view is it should move into the area of the public 
>> domain,
>> legally protected for any use at that point, with all restrictions on use
>> rights completely removed, allowing binary deconstruction, reverse
>> engineering, machine code extraction, essentially use for any purpose.
>>
>> It makes no sense that abandonware should not receive a legal standing,
>> such that any person or company who approaches it for use is actually
>> protected under the law.  They should have that protection.  The use of
>> that pre-existing tool should be at their disposal when the entity who
>> originally held rights to it walks away.
>>
> 
> One problem is that the author of the program may not have the right to 
> give you those abilities. Say for instance you buy program X from 
> company Y, under licensing rules Z (including perhaps an exchange of 
> money). What you might not know is that company Y in producing program 
> X, included software package A from company B, under rules C, which are 
> reflected in some of the rules Z.
> 
> The fact that company Y has abandoned X, in no way relieves them from 
> rules C, which they passed on to you.

That's why IBM never released the code for OS/2 when they abandoned it. 
Some of the code was written (and owned) by Microsoft, and IBM couldn't 
release it.

A shame.  A great OS by a company who never could market to consumers.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web