MyZ80
Marek
I am looking for the e-mail address of Simeon Cran because I would
like to buy his great emulator MyZ80. Unfortunately, all addresses he
put in the Internet or I have found in this group do not work.
Do you know how to contact with him?
Or maybe you know where can I purchase full working MyZ80?
Best regards
Marek
Billy Chen
web ?
http://www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/users/ag/yaze-ag/
It is free, working great in Lunux or Sun Station (not in DOS or Windows).
The TAP=62K. Also support the unducment instuction of Z80, MMU, and many
many more.
Billy Chen
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/7453/freesoft/freesoft.html
primo
Douglas Beattie Jr.
> I am looking for the e-mail address of Simeon Cran because I would
> like to buy his great emulator MyZ80.
I don't know if he'll deal with you, but if he does, please let us
know.. Mr. Cran somewhat disappeared for a while, as he rigorously
pursued an education in computer science -- he has moved on to
"bigger and better things," (as they often say)...
An internal Wiki server at the Queensland University of Technology
in Brisbane Australia shows a very recent page for Simeon Cran:
http://plaswww2.fit.qut.edu.au/wiki/ow.asp?SimeonCran
I sent several e-mail letters to him when he was at UQ, but he
would not reply. My current assumption is that he has "orphaned"
MYZ80, and will neither sell nor support it.
--
Douglas Beattie Jr. http://www2.whidbey.net/~beattidp/
Charles Richmond
officially *say* all this himself. He could provide a *free*
hobbyist license for the current version of MyZ80 and release
the source. If he ever decided to pick it up again, he could
make *later* releases shareware again IMHO.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Dosius
How 'bout we emulator authors clone it? :ţ With any other interested
parties, it might be possible to write a functional clone of MYZ80.
If I can write an Apple ][ emulator... The only thing is I wish to
avoid a chicken-and-egg problem - all I need to know is how to load
and run the BIOS/BDOS, how to handle the terminal, etc., and if I can
get Simeon Cran's own A: drive image (that comes with MYZ80) to work,
then I've got it made.
Takers, anyone?
-uso.
Ross Simpson
> > > I am looking for the e-mail address of Simeon Cran because I would
> > > like to buy his great emulator MyZ80.
> >
> > I don't know if he'll deal with you, but if he does, please let us
> > know.. Mr. Cran somewhat disappeared for a while, as he rigorously
> > pursued an education in computer science -- he has moved on to
> > "bigger and better things," (as they often say)...
> >
> > An internal Wiki server at the Queensland University of Technology
> > in Brisbane Australia shows a very recent page for Simeon Cran:
> >
> > http://plaswww2.fit.qut.edu.au/wiki/ow.asp?SimeonCran
> >
> > I sent several e-mail letters to him when he was at UQ, but he
> > would not reply. My current assumption is that he has "orphaned"
> > MYZ80, and will neither sell nor support it.
> >
> It would be nice if Simeon Cran would post to <comp.os.cpm> and
> officially *say* all this himself. He could provide a *free*
> hobbyist license for the current version of MyZ80 and release
> the source. If he ever decided to pick it up again, he could
> make *later* releases shareware again IMHO.
That's the other problem I see with $hareware. There are many $hareware
programs out there on the internet (e.g at Simtel) which the original author
doesn't support. This is where the product should automatically become
Freeware, but the author should provide some sort of key (if that's what it
needs) to indicate it's been registered as 'Freeware'.
Wishing everyone here a merry christmas & a happy new year! :-)
Ross.
Claudio Puviani
> This is where the product should automatically become
> Freeware, but the author should provide some sort of
> key (if that's what it needs) to indicate it's been registered
> as 'Freeware'.
Unless you paid for it, you don't get a say in what the author does or doesn't
do with his software. He owes you absolutely nothing, least of all giving you
free access to his software just because you want it. I'd like to see how YOU'd
take it if some whining runt told YOU what to do with YOUR property.
Claudio Puviani
Richard Steven Walz
Done ALL the time, it's called variously: Eminent domain, taxation,
expiration of copyright, in other words, Big "D" - Democracy.
Possession isn't any "right" as rightists think. ALLLLLLLL property
is a function of democratic power to decide whether or not to let you
keep it and protect you while you do, so some thousands don't knock you
down and take it away from you, nothing more. All other claims of some
"divine ownership" are superstitious and moronically religious.
In ALLLLLLL final analysis your friends, neighbors, and total strangers
get to decide what's YOURS and what is NOT YOURS, by what they'll put
up with or demand for themselves, and that usually smacks of liberty,
equality, and fairness, and it is getting EVER *MORE SO*!! And I LIKE it!
"Live it or live with it!" - Firesign Theater
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rst...@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
Claudio Puviani
wrote$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
> Done ALL the time, it's called variously: Eminent domain, taxation,
> expiration of copyright, in other words, Big "D" - Democracy.
>
> Possession isn't any "right" as rightists think. ALLLLLLLL property
> is a function of democratic power to decide whether or not to let you
> keep it and protect you while you do, so some thousands don't knock you
> down and take it away from you, nothing more. All other claims of some
> "divine ownership" are superstitious and moronically religious.
>
> In ALLLLLLL final analysis your friends, neighbors, and total strangers
> get to decide what's YOURS and what is NOT YOURS, by what they'll put
> up with or demand for themselves, and that usually smacks of liberty,
> equality, and fairness, and it is getting EVER *MORE SO*!! And I LIKE it!
As irrelevant as it is pompous. You can spew your social theories until you're
blue in the face, the software's author still gets to decide whether or not
he'll release his code for free. I honestly don't think that you'll find 999
other twirps like yourself who'll forcefully wrest control of his property from
him.
But if you are going to wax philosophical, keep in mind that most people are
intelligent enough to realize that the moment they take away someone's ability
to own something, their own ability to own something becomes threatened. So
your little childish anarchistic fantasy isn't likely to happen unless everyone
is willing to have strangers walk into their homes and walk out with their
widescreen TV without so much as a 'thank you'. I don't know about you, but
neither I nor the people I know are THAT stupid. Property laws and customs are
to the advantage of everyone but a small minority that we usually call
'thieves'.
As to "divine", "superstitious", or "religious"... that's all in your own head,
boy. No one ever said anything about that anywhere in this thread before you
came running along like a beheaded chicken.
Claudio Puviani
Ross Simpson
> > This is where the product should automatically become
> > Freeware, but the author should provide some sort of
> > key (if that's what it needs) to indicate it's been registered
> > as 'Freeware'.
>
> Unless you paid for it, you don't get a say in what the author does or
doesn't
> do with his software. He owes you absolutely nothing, least of all giving
you
> free access to his software just because you want it. I'd like to see how
YOU'd
> take it if some whining runt told YOU what to do with YOUR property.
Well yes, I can see your point. But some people have done that in the past
with their software, so there would have been displeased customers who would
have paid - but what if it remains $hareware & the author doesn't support
it, what happens to the people who want to register it, but can't? (they
would just be as displeased). Anyway my point about providing $hareware for
Free over time was directed totally on MyZ80, but your correct, the authors
can do what they like. But what I was trying to say is that some of the
problems with $hareware on the 'net (or even information or programs they
originally offered themselves) is so old it is no longer supported by them,
that case being it no longer has any value as $hareware (Games are a classic
example.
I've seen real old games which fall under the $hareware category & still
remain $hareware, however I've seen other games which are far more
complicated which are given away as freeware) sure you can say but what
about the people who paid for it? (they were the lucky ones who had first
proper look at it) when some poor blighter like me misses out because the
author no longer supports it & I in turn would have to put up with those
$hareware messages.
I say if your an author of a $hareware program, then you need to continue
supporting your software until you see fit that it has no more value in it.
When it comes to that stage I can only see two things they must do:
1) Completely remove it off the 'net (this means sourcing out the major
sites which distribute your $hareware - advising them I no longer support
this software, please remove it off your website) or,
2) Release it as Freeware (this would perhaps also involve removing all the
$hareware copies from those $hareware sites or sending them a patch for it
to become freeware).
Either way it's their mess (they should clean it up).
Incidentally if I did write something (which is something I occasionally
do), I wouldn't care what the end user does with it (just don't make any
money out of it - or I'll come a banging) since I believe in the Freeware
concept & use it for my programs (if I port it or translate it - same thing
basically) I would just receive partial credit for the translating (which is
fine by me), so if I'd made a pretty comprehensive piece of software it
would be Freeware. My view is Money complicates things & $hareware makes it
even more complicated.
So in the end your right I don't have a say in this, but at least if your a
$hareware author of some software, try to support it, if not remove it (to
at least keep people like me happy).
With Regards,
Ross.
Kevin Handy
Instead of writing another clone, just use/modify one of the
other existing versions
simh, 22nce, etc.
simh, for example, comes with full source for a Z80 emulator,
has numerious disk images available to use with it (cpm2, cpm3,
mpm, etc), emulates both floppy and hard disk, bank switching, etc.
Claudio Puviani
> ... what happens to the people who want to register it, but can't?
If I want a 1968 Camaro, does that put ANY obligation whatsoever on GM to start
manufacturing them again? Should Adam Osborne be forced to sell Osborne I's
again because I'd buy one if he did? There are plenty of books that I'd buy if
they were still in print, but what should my desire have to do with the
publisher? The argument that some people might still want to buy a product
doesn't hold up.
> But what I was trying to say is that some of the problems with
> $hareware on the 'net ... is so old it is no longer supported by
> them, that case being it no longer has any value as $hareware
If it has no value, why would the author do ANYTHING but abandon it completely?
> but what about the people who paid for it?
The only thing that I can agree with is that shareware authors have a moral
obligation to provide at least acknowledgement to those who paid for their
programs and, depending on how much was paid, possibly even support. On that,
I'm 100% with you.
> when some poor blighter like me misses out because the
> author no longer supports it & I in turn would have to put
> up with those $hareware messages.
Consider yourself lucky that you have it at all. Again, how does your not
having been there at the right time this have anything to do with the author?
It's the 1968 Camaro scenario all over again. Sucks for you and me, but we have
to deal with it.
> I say if your an author of a $hareware program, then you need
> to continue supporting your software until you see fit that it has
> no more value in it.
No, the author of shareware doesn't need to do anything that they don't feel
like doing.
> 1) Completely remove it off the 'net
Why? Some people can still draw benefit even if they have to endure nag
screens. You're much better off with a nagging program that does what you need
that without it. I personally really like z80mu, which was also abandoned long,
long ago. Is it any less useful to me because it has a nag screen? Honestly,
no.
> advising them I no longer support this software
That would be common courtesy, but they don't have to do it.
> 2) Release it as Freeware
Only if they feel like it.
> Either way it's their mess (they should clean it up).
No. It's YOUR mess. Don't pass the buck. You're the one who's using the
software that you're NOT entitled to. The author and the people who registered
the software have no mess to contend with.
> Incidentally if I did write something , I wouldn't care what the end
> user does with it
That's very generous of you. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to live by
your principles.
> I believe in the Freeware concept
Some people believe in nudism. Thankfully, that doesn't mean that the rest of
us have to go naked.
> My view is Money complicates things & $hareware makes it
> even more complicated.
Again, that's your view, but you can't ask people to feel the same way.
> So in the end your right I don't have a say in this, but at least if your a
> $hareware author of some software, try to support it, if not remove it (to
> at least keep people like me happy).
What's their interest on keeping you happy? Yes, it would be great for you if
you could use the software without being nagged, but that doesn't weigh in the
balance.
The one thing that keeps coming back is that you seem to expect others to
behave by a set of rules that you define, and that's just not the way the world
works. You want someone's software for free, someone else wants to sleep on
your couch for free. What makes you right and the stranger who wants to use
your couch wrong? You say that making the shareware free costs the author
nothing. I say that letting a random homeless person sleep on your couch costs
you nothing. You say that having the shareware turn into freeware would make
you happy. I say that a homeless person would be ecstatic to turn your couch
into his permanent nightly shelter. You seem like a smart lad, but you'd gain a
lot by stepping back and looking at things objectively and from the point of
view of those who may have different and even conflicting interests.
Claudio Puviani
Claudio Puviani
> Instead of writing another clone, just use/modify one of the
> other existing versions
>
> simh, 22nce, etc.
>
> simh, for example, comes with full source for a Z80 emulator,
> has numerious disk images available to use with it (cpm2, cpm3,
> mpm, etc), emulates both floppy and hard disk, bank switching, etc.
Right. And they shouldn't forget that TRS-80 Model 4 emulators also run CP/M
very well. But if they're dead set on (ahem) "creating" another Z80 emulator,
they should look at existing source like M.E.S.S. or xtrs. There are at least
half a dozen more that I can't even remember.
Claudio Puviani
Ross Simpson
> Done ALL the time, it's called variously: Eminent domain, taxation,
> expiration of copyright, in other words, Big "D" - Democracy.
Expiration of copyright is suppose to be 50 years. An example of an IBM
machine which is over 50 years old would be the 'Harvard Mark I'. I'd sure
like to see someone walk out the door with one of those! :-)
> Possession isn't any "right" as rightists think. ALLLLLLLL property
> is a function of democratic power to decide whether or not to let you
> keep it and protect you while you do, so some thousands don't knock you
> down and take it away from you, nothing more. All other claims of some
> "divine ownership" are superstitious and moronically religious.
This is why people write up a legal Will (to protect what's theirs & make
sure it goes to the right people).
> In ALLLLLLL final analysis your friends, neighbors, and total strangers
> get to decide what's YOURS and what is NOT YOURS, by what they'll put
> up with or demand for themselves, and that usually smacks of liberty,
> equality, and fairness, and it is getting EVER *MORE SO*!! And I LIKE it!
I dare you to walk up to Caldera & say that (after all this is a CP/M
newsgroup)! ;-)
Anyway it's christmas time, which means it's a time for giving (not taking)
& to be greatful for what you recieve, it's the thought that counts.
With Regards,
Ross.
Charles Richmond
>
> " [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> So in the end your right I don't have a say in this, but at least if your a
> $hareware author of some software, try to support it, if not remove it (to
> at least keep people like me happy).
>
post a message releasing this program for free use. If he
would release the source also...then others could fix bugs
and add enhancements.
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> What's their interest on keeping you happy? Yes, it would be great for you if
> you could use the software without being nagged, but that doesn't weigh in the
> balance.
>
> The one thing that keeps coming back is that you seem to expect others to
> behave by a set of rules that you define, and that's just not the way the world
> works. You want someone's software for free, someone else wants to sleep on
> your couch for free. What makes you right and the stranger who wants to use
> your couch wrong? You say that making the shareware free costs the author
> nothing. I say that letting a random homeless person sleep on your couch costs
> you nothing. You say that having the shareware turn into freeware would make
> you happy. I say that a homeless person would be ecstatic to turn your couch
> into his permanent nightly shelter. You seem like a smart lad, but you'd gain a
> lot by stepping back and looking at things objectively and from the point of
> view of those who may have different and even conflicting interests.
>
that fellow programmers and hobbyists have for each other. I have
helped out people that I met on the net...and people have given
help to me. There was *no* exchange of money. See, we were happy
to help each other out. People really *do* help others that they
do *not* personally know.
*Not* everyone thinks only of himself or is as grasping as you
portray people. Some *do* care about passing things along to
others who would enjoy those things. Leor Zolman comes to mind
in this regard. Perhaps Simeon Cran would do well to follow
Leor Zolman's example...
Ross Simpson
> > ... what happens to the people who want to register it, but can't?
>
> If I want a 1968 Camaro, does that put ANY obligation whatsoever on GM to
start
> manufacturing them again? Should Adam Osborne be forced to sell Osborne
I's
> again because I'd buy one if he did? There are plenty of books that I'd
buy if
> they were still in print, but what should my desire have to do with the
> publisher? The argument that some people might still want to buy a product
> doesn't hold up.
Books is a really bad example (look at the number of Second-Hand Bookshops &
Online Bookshops), it's a matter of luck obtaining the book you want. But
I've picked up books (that I didn't even think existed) since I believe it
to be a valuable reference for me.
You could pick-up a fully restored 1968 Camaro (again by luck) through the
proper interest areas (or car shows).
> If it has no value, why would the author do ANYTHING but abandon it
completely?
So that future generations of people don't stumble across it. I'd find it
confusing if I downloaded one of those $hareware programs, paid the author,
but benefited zip from paying them, I'd recieve no updates & in case of a
program which is crippled in some shape or form, it would still be crippled.
How would you feel if you did the right thing by paying up to $100 to
someone, only to be ripped off! - I suppose I would be the only person who
would feel that I've been ripped off, that's just my view (as silly as it
sounds)!.
> The only thing that I can agree with is that shareware authors have a
moral
> obligation to provide at least acknowledgement to those who paid for their
> programs and, depending on how much was paid, possibly even support. On
that,
> I'm 100% with you.
Yeah, well that sort of ties in what I said above.
> Consider yourself lucky that you have it at all. Again, how does your not
> having been there at the right time this have anything to do with the
author?
But that's what I'm saying. I consider myself guilty of having that piece of
software that's unregistered because it's petty theft, because it's
available on the 'net it encourages people to steal (but then I suppose it's
the authors fault for not supporting it) - but stealing encourages people to
steal bigger & pricier things (again my view), however people who've paid &
recieved nothing from it is the same thing (which is why I defined 2 views).
> It's the 1968 Camaro scenario all over again. Sucks for you and me, but we
have
> to deal with it.
I'm sure there are plenty of classic cars to pick & choose, if the Camaro
isn't available.
> No, the author of shareware doesn't need to do anything that they don't
feel
> like doing.
But because they get away with what's there, the same sort of problem gets
exalted to bigger & naughtier things (don't you see!) with people believing
taking is the right thing to do.
> > 1) Completely remove it off the 'net
>
> Why? Some people can still draw benefit even if they have to endure nag
> screens. You're much better off with a nagging program that does what you
need
> that without it. I personally really like z80mu, which was also abandoned
long,
> long ago. Is it any less useful to me because it has a nag screen?
Honestly,
> no.
>
> > advising them I no longer support this software
>
> That would be common courtesy, but they don't have to do it.
>
> > 2) Release it as Freeware
>
> Only if they feel like it.
>
> > Either way it's their mess (they should clean it up).
>
> No. It's YOUR mess. Don't pass the buck. You're the one who's using the
> software that you're NOT entitled to. The author and the people who
registered
> the software have no mess to contend with.
Why is it my mess when it's the author who creates it? (alway's begin taught
to clean up my own mess!)
> > Incidentally if I did write something , I wouldn't care what the end
> > user does with it
>
> That's very generous of you. It doesn't mean that anyone else has to live
by
> your principles.
Those principles are not mine!?! It is all part of the standard terms &
conditions surrounding Freeware (the bottom line is use at your own risk!).
My only belief in $hareware is I won't use it in a situation where I have to
pay. The concept of using a piece of $hareware in a not-for-profit role
works for me (that way I at least have the authors word I'm not doing the
wrong thing).
With Regards,
Ross.
Richard Plinston
>
> Expiration of copyright is suppose to be 50 years. An example of an IBM
> machine which is over 50 years old would be the 'Harvard Mark I'. I'd sure
> like to see someone walk out the door with one of those! :-)
The expiration of copyright means (presumably) that someone can now make
a copy of the Mark I, it does not mean they can steal the original.
Richard Plinston
>
> - but what if it remains $hareware & the author doesn't support
> it, what happens to the people who want to register it, but can't?
Some classes of intellectual property, trademarks especially, require
that the owner actively persues infringements to prove that they wish to
retain it.
For example in the MS vs Lindows case the court noticed that MS had not
being persuing protection of the name 'Windows' as it is found in many
non-MS products, such as 'Windows Backup'.
Ross Simpson
Ah okay! Ah geez, I did stuff-up! :-) (Thank's Steve, now I'm going Loopy!,
have you got anymore mind games for us?)
I suppose if it's possible to do so, would it be possible to write a clone
of another program (such as Windoze) without infringing copyright? (Well
when I say clone I don't mean an exact copy of the original, just one which
runs Windoze programs more efficiently). I suppose copyright would only be
trodden over if there is reason to believe that the clone is using some of
the original coding. Heaven forbid if what I said earlier was true, everyone
would raid their local antique dealer!
With Regards,
Ross.
Claudio Puviani
> I suppose if it's possible to do so, would it be possible to write a clone
> of another program (such as Windoze) without infringing copyright? (Well
> when I say clone I don't mean an exact copy of the original, just one which
> runs Windoze programs more efficiently). I suppose copyright would only be
> trodden over if there is reason to believe that the clone is using some of
> the original coding.
Copyright law is actually fairly complex. As it pertains to software, it covers
not only the source code, but also what's come to be known as "look and feel"
(the precedent for this having been set by Lotus Corporation in the mid 80s).
The general idea behind it is that the imitation has to be clearly distinct. It
can't just be a straight out copy. However, other court cases established that
it's not enough for the imitation to just be similar. In other words, if it can
confuse a consumer into thinking that they're using one product instead of
another, you have a good case for copyright violation.
That said, there are a few products out there that do allow you to run Windows
applications on other operating systems. WINE is one example.
Claudio Puviani
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> I suppose if it's possible to do so, would it be possible to
> write a clone of another program (such as Windoze) without
> infringing copyright? (Well when I say clone I don't mean an
> exact copy of the original, just one which runs Windoze
> programs more efficiently). I suppose copyright would only be
> trodden over if there is reason to believe that the clone is
> using some of the original coding. Heaven forbid if what I
> said earlier was true, everyone would raid their local
> antique dealer!
It already exists. Look up WINE.
--
Chuck F (cbfal...@yahoo.com) (cbfal...@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
CBFalconer
> Ross Simpson wrote:
> >
> > " [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >
> > So in the end your right I don't have a say in this, but at
> > least if your a $hareware author of some software, try to
> > support it, if not remove it (to at least keep people like
> > me happy).
> >
> As I mentioned before, it would be *nice* if Mr. Cran would
> post a message releasing this program for free use. If he
> would release the source also...then others could fix bugs
> and add enhancements.
I believe he has (released the source). I seem to have a zip of
it here, don't remember when and why I acquired it, but the
contents have dates in 2002.
Claudio Puviani
Here are a few e-mail addresses for Simeon Cran that you may or may not have
tried. I didn't check them myself.
sim...@myz80.brisnet.org.au
sim...@b022.aone.net.au
s37...@student.uq.edu.au
Billy Chen
> I believe he has (released the source). I seem to have a zip of
> it here, don't remember when and why I acquired it, but the
> contents have dates in 2002.
Would if it be put in here ?
Claudio Puviani
Charles Richmond
pieces in museums.
Richard Steven Walz
Claudio Puviani <cla...@puviani.net> wrote:
>"Richard Steven Walz" <rst...@deeptht.armory.com>
>wrote$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
>> Done ALL the time, it's called variously: Eminent domain, taxation,
>> expiration of copyright, in other words, Big "D" - Democracy.
>>
>> Possession isn't any "right" as rightists think. ALLLLLLLL property
>> is a function of democratic power to decide whether or not to let you
>> keep it and protect you while you do, so some thousands don't knock you
>> down and take it away from you, nothing more. All other claims of some
>> "divine ownership" are superstitious and moronically religious.
>>
>> In ALLLLLLL final analysis your friends, neighbors, and total strangers
>> get to decide what's YOURS and what is NOT YOURS, by what they'll put
>> up with or demand for themselves, and that usually smacks of liberty,
>> equality, and fairness, and it is getting EVER *MORE SO*!! And I LIKE it!
>
>As irrelevant as it is pompous. You can spew your social theories until you're
>blue in the face,
It's no theory, it's an obvious incontrovertible truth!! The Democracy
decides who owns what.
>the software's author still gets to decide whether or not
>he'll release his code for free.
--------------------------
Only till we change the law, then he's Shit Out Of Luck.
>I honestly don't think that you'll find 999
>other twirps like yourself who'll forcefully wrest control of his property from
>him.
--------------------------
You can be as honest in your stupidity and ignorance as you want. The fact
is that we who are amoral regarding such things already HAVE, by the tens
or hundreds of thousands, and he can't stop it, AND AS WELL, that the
democracy can decide to take it away from him whenever they fucking please.
>But if you are going to wax philosophical, keep in mind that most people are
>intelligent enough to realize that the moment they take away someone's ability
>to own something, their own ability to own something becomes threatened.
-----------------------------
So far, what they seem to defend is merely his right to sell it, and
they turn a blind eye to those of us who ignore them and copy it anyway
without a marketing strategy!!
>So
>your little childish anarchistic fantasy isn't likely to happen unless everyone
>is willing to have strangers walk into their homes and walk out with their
>widescreen TV without so much as a 'thank you'.
------------------------------
People support personal property, because they have things they want to
keep as well, but if you have a movie theater it might be subject to being
declared NON-personal. Get used to the idea, it's the future!!
>I don't know about you, but
>neither I nor the people I know are THAT stupid. Property laws and customs are
>to the advantage of everyone but a small minority that we usually call
>'thieves'.
-------------------------------
Modes of agreement about property have changed before, A LOT, and will
change again. COUNT ON IT!
>As to "divine", "superstitious", or "religious"... that's all in your own head,
>boy. No one ever said anything about that anywhere in this thread before you
>came running along like a beheaded chicken.
>Claudio Puviani
-----------------------------
You're nothing but a tooth-gnashing Rightist whining when the truth is
revealed and it scares the shit out of your wallet.
Steve
Richard Steven Walz
Claudio Puviani <cla...@puviani.net> wrote:
>"Ross Simpson" <rosssimpson@my_spammers_address(optusnet).com.au> wrote
>> ... what happens to the people who want to register it, but can't?
>
>If I want a 1968 Camaro, does that put ANY obligation whatsoever on GM to start
>manufacturing them again?
No, but if THEY don't want to, then someone ELSE should get to!
Maybe the People's State!
>publisher? The argument that some people might still want to buy a product
>doesn't hold up.
------------------------
Not when you intentionally mis-cast it as you just did.
>behave by a set of rules that you define, and that's just not the way the world
>works. You want someone's software for free, someone else wants to sleep on
>your couch for free. What makes you right and the stranger who wants to use
>your couch wrong?
---------------------------
He's using that software on HIS OWN couch, THAT'S what! You seem to be
the source of all mis-cast argument regarding this shit!!
You say that making the shareware free costs the author
>nothing. I say that letting a random homeless person sleep on your couch costs
>you nothing.
------------------------
Again, costs you use of your couch, safety in your home, etc. Totally
different. Mis-cast argument!!
Steve
Richard Steven Walz
Ross Simpson <rosssimpson@my_spammers_address(optusnet).com.au> wrote:
>"Richard Steven Walz" <rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message...
>
>> Done ALL the time, it's called variously: Eminent domain, taxation,
>> expiration of copyright, in other words, Big "D" - Democracy.
>
>Expiration of copyright is suppose to be 50 years. An example of an IBM
>machine which is over 50 years old would be the 'Harvard Mark I'. I'd sure
>like to see someone walk out the door with one of those! :-)
Irrelevant. Different property is regarded differently. Democracy decides.
>> Possession isn't any "right" as rightists think. ALLLLLLLL property
>> is a function of democratic power to decide whether or not to let you
>> keep it and protect you while you do, so some thousands don't knock you
>> down and take it away from you, nothing more. All other claims of some
>> "divine ownership" are superstitious and moronically religious.
>
>This is why people write up a legal Will (to protect what's theirs & make
>sure it goes to the right people).
----------------------------------------
To ASK, BESEECH, BEG the body politic to let their will assign property
to another, that's democracy, and we TAX inheritance!
>> In ALLLLLLL final analysis your friends, neighbors, and total strangers
>> get to decide what's YOURS and what is NOT YOURS, by what they'll put
>> up with or demand for themselves, and that usually smacks of liberty,
>> equality, and fairness, and it is getting EVER *MORE SO*!! And I LIKE it!
>
>I dare you to walk up to Caldera & say that (after all this is a CP/M
>newsgroup)! ;-)
-----------------------------------
I'm on my bed in California! So why would I go to Utah and talk to a
bunch of fucking Mormons!?
>Anyway it's christmas time, which means it's a time for giving (not taking)
>& to be greatful for what you recieve, it's the thought that counts.
>Ross.
-----------------
Humbug!
Steve