🚀 go-pugleaf

In a thread concerning the availability or not of old
versions of computer software gavp@gis.net wrote in
article <397F646C.FB137CA2@gis.net> in alt.lang.basic:

>I think copyright laws must be respected to a reasonable 
>boundary/time frame. QB and other alike software are out 
>of that time frame.  I'm not saying that intellectual 
>property values should be disregarded but there's a limit
>to everything.  In case of QB it is totally preposterous.

This is close to an attitude I've esposed for years in
relation to books rather than software -- and I see a
subtle distinction.  (Perhaps it's my imagination. 8-)

With books and similar documents, it has always seemed to
me that copyright holders should have some reponsibility
to make the material available while it's "out of print",
in return for society's protection of the ownership rights.

To some extent books and such are expressions of information
and, as someone mentioned here recently, information should
be "freely" available.  (In my view that does not mean you 
shouldn't have to pay something for specific expressions of
such "information"; but it does mean you should continue to
have *convenient* access to it, whether in print or out.)

Particularly in the technical and scientific fields, it is
very frustrating when a particular "bible" goes out of print
and there are no plans by the publisher to issue a new
edition within a reasonable time frame, if at all!  

As an example, I have in mind a very good book on the botany
and utility of tropical pasture plants in Longman's Tropical 
Agriculture Series: Bogdan, A.V. (1977) _Tropical Pasture and 
Fodder Plants (Grasses and Legumes)_ (Longman: London & NY.)
Pp. xiii + 475.  ISBN 0-582-46676-8.

This book deals with a subject that others have also tackled;
but unlike the others which tend to be simple rehashes of the
same old detail from author to author, Bogdan's book covers
much material not found elsewhere (in English at least) to my
knowledge, and with a rather different emphasis.  It deserves
a place on the shelf of every tropical pasture scientist but,
when I last enquired, it was well and truly out of print and
there seemed to be no plan by Longman's to republish it.

In such cases I think it should be acceptable for would-be 
users to legally copy the material in whole or part.  I would
have no objection to paying an appropriate royalty for the
privilege if such payments could be made efficiently and 
conveniently. 

Turning to computer software I see a distinction.  For a start,
I'm told that it's only the source code which can be copyrighted
(as a "literary work") -- but perhaps that varies across
jurisdictions? -- whereas, in most cases, it's only the compiled
code which is sold to end users and I assume that's protected by
those licences you can't read *until* you've opened the box. ;-)

In a sense, the program as you buy it is a "thing" rather than
"information" -- you want it to do certain work for you.
So, like any manufacturer of "things", software publishers
are entitled to produce new models and withdraw old.  It is
then entirely their own decision as to whether the old model
should remain in production or whether they would be better
served by withdrawing it and moving the market to the new
version.  Also, in order to protect their income stream they 
will need to prevent illegal copying of both the old and the
new versions.

Of course, they have a particular problem here because it's
so damn easy and cheap for virtually anyone who wants to,
to copy the "thing" when it's software -- compare the economy 
of making your own car by copying a Holden rather than buying
one from GMH for example, or even of making your own soup spoon.

I have a proviso in all this though -- if a new version of
software "breaks" older versions in the sense that you can 
no longer access documents created with the older versions,
then I think the software publishers have an obligation to
either continue sales and support of the old model or provide
some *satisfactory* means to convert documents from the old 
to the new format.  To their credit, I think they mostly do
this with modern version changes.

Cheers,  Ian S.

[Note Followups trimmed to the aus.* groups.]








ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au