fern wrote:You are legally right, but at the same time law, in this pariticular field, does not fit well with reality. A literary work can be worthy no matter how much time has gone, but a software 10 years old or more tends to become just unuseful. Some does not even works in current OS.
Besides, perhaps nothing is protected by law if nobody claims such protection. Law is activated only on request.
my best
Fernando
It depends on who supplies the OS.
At work we have mainframes, where our oldest application is from 1967. Runs as fine as it ever has!
Harvey Williamson wrote:
In the soon to be held elections i hope all candidates will support this as well as a general anti -piracy message. Is there any sign of elections? As the current mods seem to have overthrown the democratic system and held on to power.
Seriously it is time for democratic elections.
Best Wishes,
Harvey
I think the transfer of ownership has more to do with the Methusalahen (just invented the adjective - don't bother looking it up) mod term than our covert tyrannical powers.
I'll just add that as a moderator, our primary job is to uphold the terms of the charter, and the charter is crystal clear on how piracy is viewed. It is the very difference between here and public discussion groups such as RGCC. Thus our very function is an embodiment against piracy, so I see no reason why any moderator would have to make a separate statement on this. It would be like demanding a police officer state he is against crime.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
In the soon to be held elections i hope all candidates will support this as well as a general anti -piracy message. Is there any sign of elections? As the current mods seem to have overthrown the democratic system and held on to power.
Seriously it is time for democratic elections.
Best Wishes,
Harvey
I think the transfer of ownership has more to do with the Methusalahen (just invented the adjective - don't bother looking it up) mod term than our covert tyrannical powers.
I'll just add that as a moderator, our primary job is to uphold the terms of the charter, and the charter is crystal clear on how piracy is viewed. It is the very difference between here and public discussion groups such as RGCC. Thus our very function is an embodiment against piracy, so I see no reason why any moderator would have to make a separate statement on this. It would be like demanding a police officer state he is against crime.
Albert
Only because as an elected moderator - as someone who elected you I have the right to ask the question.
As I have to any candidate that stands.
If you cant answer the question that is your problem.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
In the soon to be held elections i hope all candidates will support this as well as a general anti -piracy message. Is there any sign of elections? As the current mods seem to have overthrown the democratic system and held on to power.
Seriously it is time for democratic elections.
Best Wishes,
Harvey
I think the transfer of ownership has more to do with the Methusalahen (just invented the adjective - don't bother looking it up) mod term than our covert tyrannical powers.
I'll just add that as a moderator, our primary job is to uphold the terms of the charter, and the charter is crystal clear on how piracy is viewed. It is the very difference between here and public discussion groups such as RGCC. Thus our very function is an embodiment against piracy, so I see no reason why any moderator would have to make a separate statement on this. It would be like demanding a police officer state he is against crime.
Albert
Only because as an elected moderator - as someone who elected you I have the right to ask the question.
As I have to any candidate that stands.
If you cant answer the question that is your problem.
Also sadly the only bit of the charter that seems to apply is:
5. Are not of questionable legal status.
So if this is so then I think as a member with a vote I can ask the question and anyone who stands for office, or who currently holds office, should be prepared to answer.
Last edited by Harvey Williamson on Thu May 24, 2007 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
fern wrote:I was just adding another point of view, not litigating againts you about this issue. BTW, law is a transient, modifiable thing. Copyrights laws based in situation 50 years old does not make much sense.
I see an old, unuseful software, as a wreck in the ocean. Nominally a wrecked ship had or has an owner; in practice, as you know well, in sea law you can get it freely as some guys do this very moment with a treasure found in the Atlantic..
And gold, as far as I know, never lose value.
In promise you if I ever have the chance to get an abandonaware that for any reason I want to have as a collectible item, I will not ask you....
My best
fernando
Fern,
Nevertheless, the law is the law and Uniacke has not stated he has abandoned any version of HIARCS.
Abandoned vessels are a hazard to navigation but copywritten versions of HIARCS are not a hazard to anyone unless they steal it. HIARCS copyright ownership is not modifiable unless Uniacke agrees to it in writing.
Major, 45 Commando, Royal Marines,
Condor Barracks, Arbroath, Scotland
Harvey Williamson wrote:
In the soon to be held elections i hope all candidates will support this as well as a general anti -piracy message. Is there any sign of elections? As the current mods seem to have overthrown the democratic system and held on to power.
Seriously it is time for democratic elections.
Best Wishes,
Harvey
I think the transfer of ownership has more to do with the Methusalahen (just invented the adjective - don't bother looking it up) mod term than our covert tyrannical powers.
I'll just add that as a moderator, our primary job is to uphold the terms of the charter, and the charter is crystal clear on how piracy is viewed. It is the very difference between here and public discussion groups such as RGCC. Thus our very function is an embodiment against piracy, so I see no reason why any moderator would have to make a separate statement on this. It would be like demanding a police officer state he is against crime.
Albert
Only because as an elected moderator - as someone who elected you I have the right to ask the question.
As I have to any candidate that stands.
If you cant answer the question that is your problem.
I'm sure you can explain that last phrase of yours.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
In the soon to be held elections i hope all candidates will support this as well as a general anti -piracy message. Is there any sign of elections? As the current mods seem to have overthrown the democratic system and held on to power.
Seriously it is time for democratic elections.
Best Wishes,
Harvey
I think the transfer of ownership has more to do with the Methusalahen (just invented the adjective - don't bother looking it up) mod term than our covert tyrannical powers.
I'll just add that as a moderator, our primary job is to uphold the terms of the charter, and the charter is crystal clear on how piracy is viewed. It is the very difference between here and public discussion groups such as RGCC. Thus our very function is an embodiment against piracy, so I see no reason why any moderator would have to make a separate statement on this. It would be like demanding a police officer state he is against crime.
Albert
Only because as an elected moderator - as someone who elected you I have the right to ask the question.
As I have to any candidate that stands.
If you cant answer the question that is your problem.
I'm sure you can explain that last phrase of yours.
Albert
Shall i quote the email i have a copy of?
Also sadly as i post above the charter does not cover it - the only bit of the charter that seems to apply is:
5. Are not of questionable legal status.
So if this is so then I think as a member with a vote I can ask the question and anyone who stands for office, or who currently holds office, should be prepared to answer.
That, Hiarcs case, is precisely a case where an interested part calls the law in his support.
Abadonned ware supposes, in its logic, an ausence of that call.
When there is abandon, law dos not intervene.
When law does not intervene, law is like nonexistant at all.
BTW, a ship wreck not aslways is a hazard. If sunk, it is not.
