[NTLK] Copyright Test [was h*cks, kr*ks, SN]

[Lord Groundhog]

~~~ On 2010/01/21 23:28, Grant Hutchinson at grant at splorp.com wrote ~~~

> 
> 
>> Let's just end the whole thread right about now.
> 
> I have to agree. This one has pretty much run its course.
> 
> 

Grant, 

I can see your point here, and of course I'd never argue with "Dad".  ;-)
But, is there some value to taking a big step backwards from some of the
cliff-edges we may have been near, and just talking about that other bit you
mention?  I'm thinking of your sentence,   "It's one thing to offer
technical assistance for unsupported (or apparently abandoned) software...."
I completely see the distinction you're making, but the issue of *how* to
make this distinction rightly in specific instances may not be always clear,
and while the thread did veer off at times into murky waters, there were
other bits of it that tried to consider exactly that point:  what exactly IS
"apparently abandoned" software, and how do we recognize it?  I'm thinking
particularly of the discussion that started (but never really finished)
around things to do with our responsibility to carry out due diligence in
contacting the author(s) of the software, the appropriate means of raising
the possibility of enlisting his/her/their cooperation in either renewing
full access of the software for us or else given explicit permission to find
a workaround, and so on.

When I saw only Andy's post under this new subject line, I was about to
raise the question of whether it might ever be appropriate, in cases where
we truly have exercised due diligence and failed to make any contact, to
come up with some way to register new users on behalf of the author -- I'll
call it "proxy-registering" for now -- on the understanding that if the
author does turn up and wants to pursue his copyright, each Newtonian
proxy-registered with us has thereby given an undertaking to pay the author
the last known price for the product in question.

Once we established the correct circumstances and mechanism for its use, the
proxy-registration idea is reasonably practical.  The fraction of
awkwardness is the price we pay for trying to preserve the programmer's
rights over his creation and at the same time to deal with genuine instances
where said programmer seems to have dropped off the planet without a trace.

Consider this.  Seventy-eight Newtonians and I want to install Amazing.pkg
on our Newts; Mr. Amazing Genius the author is impossible to find and we
don't know why; we figure out how to do whatever is necessary to use the
program; and the condition we place on being able to "do whatever" is
proxy-registering.  Now, Mr Amazing Genius shows up 3 years from now having
been in seclusion in Nepal all that time and says, "Excuse me, but did I say
you could do that?"  We respond, "We tried to find you but couldn't.  We did
the next best thing we could think of to protect your property rights.
Here's the list of the 79 people who have committed themselves to paying you
the $n you had been asking for it, as soon as you made it possible by
letting us find you again."   And we all arrange payments of $n.

How is Mr Amazing Genius not going to be the happiest bunny in the warren?
He comes back after 3 years of inactivity and discovers that he has 79 new,
paying members of his customer base.


But now that I've seen your desire for the thread to cease, does that mean
you'd rather we didn't pursue this problem even in this fashion?

TIA.  

 
Shalom. 
Christian 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

³Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a Newton.²
            -- what Arthur C. Clarke meant

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ZzpdPJ7Zr4
(With thanks to Chod Lang)
http://tinyurl.com/29y2dl
http://www.diyplanner.com/node/3942

~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Fight Spam.  Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/
Get MUGged and love it: http://www.oxmug.org/
Join today: http://www.newtontalk.net/