"Abandonware" is not a legal classification. Regardless whether a software is actively maintained, it may be prudent to assume the copyright owner is still the copyright owner for the full duration allowed by governing jurisdiction (in the US it's the life of the author plus 70 years, IIRC). With no statement from a copyright holder to the contrary, that would normally be the case.
As I use both Commercial products (RunRev 201, DreamCard 24, LiveCode 45) for which I own licences and have deployed across a series of Macintoshes, and use Open Source products (LC 8110, LC 951, LC 963), produced by that "commercial entity", and find them extremely useful in my day-to-day work; and find that some of those versions appear to have features that were dropped in newer versions: Yes, I do have an "ongoing fixation", if by continuing to use them that constitutes an "ongoing fixation" like my ongoing fixations with ClarisWorks, Bryce 7, and so on that I continue to use for a variety of tasks on an ongoing basis.We may even want to reconsider the value of this ongoing fixation on a separate commercial entity uninvolved in this project.
If a law may be inappropriate, the remedy is through your elected representative legislators.richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 3:40 pm 1. It puts the hackles up of people who have an "ongoing fixation" about a copyright law that is not fit for purpose when it comes to computer software.
That would seem a good argument to keep public discussion on the high road, as I'd suggested.2. Anyone who wants to find a registration code for almost any piece of software probably has a good idea where to find it anyway.
That would be a patent issue, unrelated to this discussion of circumventing a publisher's copyright protection.richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 3:48 pm The idea of issuing an xTalk IDE that, while allowing end-users to write files, but NOT compile them as standalone apps, is neither a new idea, nor a dead one.
I have lived long enough in the world, and in enough countries, to know that that is a load of Hee-Haw: after all, were I to write to my 'elected representative legislators' suggesting that they change computer software copyright to, say, 10 years, they would not even bother to reply.If a law may be inappropriate, the remedy is through your elected representative legislators.
That was why my original reply here wasn't addressed to you.richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 4:18 pm I certainly did NOT suggest circumventing anyone's copyright protection.
HyperCard, for a very long time, did NOT allow one to make standalones.That would be a patent issue, unrelated to this discussion of circumventing a publisher's copyright protection.
Can you clarify how that feature addition relates to my comment about the difference between copyright and patents?richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 4:41 pmHyperCard, for a very long time, did NOT allow one to make standalones.That would be a patent issue, unrelated to this discussion of circumventing a publisher's copyright protection.
As far as I remember that came about in HyperCard 2.2.
No one here was talking about patents until you brought up a patent consideration (functionality). My reply was about circumventing copyright protections (license keys).richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:22 pm It doesn't: but what it might show is that the 'commercial entity' you referred to earlier surely cannot have a 'patent' on some sort of programming environment that will not compile standalone applications.
Software is intellectual property. Anyone contributing to a publicly-distributed software project benefits from taking a little time to learn a few basics about the IP rules that govern everything they do.richmond62 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 6:12 pm Those of us who don't live in the litigious world that you obviously do...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests