Re: [REQUEST]Priston Tale server image
!!! WOT ALEART !!!
Ahh. Well, there I must be honest. Abandonware is not legal to sell, or give away. It is still, very much copyrighted, and the copyright will continue to be retained by the original copyright holder even after they cease to exist. (die, or go out of business without any other organisation taking over their assets)
However, it is frequently seen not to be so "immoral" to distribute it in non-profit ways.
As an example, it's still illegal to reproduce copies of a copyright book which is out of print. However, since no publisher is trading that text, and there is no way your friends, colleagues or students could acquire that text for study unless they all trawl second-hand book shops, libraries and flea-markets searching for a copy second hand... and as nobody is likely to pursue you in a court of law, it isn't uncommon for people to make a limited number of reproductions of the text if they know of a group of people who would benefit from it.
The situation with computer software is sometimes worse. The license to use software is typically "non-transferable", meaning that second hand copies are also illegal to sell, and the only way of getting hold of out-of-print copies of software is if they have been sat on a shelf in a store unsold since publishing stopped.
With it becoming increasingly difficult to use older software, like the PT server we have (which seems to have been designed for Win2K, and adapted from something written more to 95 / NT 3 standards in the first place) on modern OS, trying to read archived documents made on XyWrite, 1stWord, Word for DOS v2 or WordStar etc. There are frequently legitimate reasons for requiring access to "out-of-print" software, and no legal means to acquire it. (Server 2003 seems to go out of extended warranty in 2015 BTW, and I suspect XP is scheduled similarly)
In such circumstances, although the act is officially illegal, it is rare (but not unheard of) for software companies to pursue "Abandonware pirates". Unfortunately, it has (in rare cases) been known for companies completely unrelated to the original publishers (now no longer in existence) to kick up a large fuss over ownership of "abandoned" software. (however, under liquidation the purchasers of parts of a companies assets can get into legal arguments over exactly who owns the rights to a title in the first place ... which can be how successful titles from otherwise failing publishers become lost to their customer base)
Microsoft are
not known for such actions, and Apple explicitly host download releases of complete working copies of their abandoned OS, and some other software on their FTP sites. (ostensibly to allow licensees to "replace damaged media"
) It is not uncommon for "responsible" copyright holders to re-release software which is no-longer commercially viable to the public to distribute as they see fit. Caldera (after purchasing Novell, who had already purchased Digital Research) released DR DOS, and the GEM Desktop Environment (a strong competitor against Windows early on) to the public domain, with complete (if no longer manageably maintained) source code. Amstrad (after having bought out Sinclair Research) released the Sinclair Spectrum, ZX81 and Timex ROM into freeware with an open license to modify, provided their name is retained. Borland (now owned by Inprise) always release their unsupported compilers to the Public Domain, although Inprise stopped releasing the IDE and RAD frameworks, and Watcom (the biggest competition for Borland in software development suites back on DOS) released their C++ compiler as freeware open-source, under a very liberal license before closing for business.
In all of those cases, the legality over "abandonware" is clear. But only because the license holder made sure that it was before ceasing trading on the title in question.
In all other cases, the legality is unclear. Or rather, trading copies would continue to be illegal, but who would be entitled to claim damages, to what amount, and for what reason is not at all clear.
For example, you cannot claim that someone "stole" the profits you should have made from selling the software you own the rights to if you refuse to sell people that software no matter how much money they offer you for it.
As I say, people have been "trading" copies of Windows NT4 for a long time, and reasonably publicly. (no need for Torrents etc.) And I've never known MS to shut anyone down or even issue warnings against anyone who did this. They could, if they wanted to, and I believe it is right that they retain ownership to prevent reverse engineering. (I don't want ReactOS to be a copy of NT4 with custom XP like extensions bolted on to it, I want them to work out their own OS) However, a generalised public "abandoned product line" statement from MS would be appreciated.
NT4 is still a fantastic OS to use on a VM. It's lightweight, fully Win32 compliant, faaaaaaaaaaast, takes little hard drive space and it's drivers support all hardware typically found on all the popular VM software packages. I think it's great for isolating Development IDEs, and testing my home-brew software for backwards compatibility. (then again, I bought NT4 workstation back in the day, so my copy is unquestionably legal
) Not everyone is fortunate enough to be as bloomin' owd as what I are.
As to where *I* feel RaGEZONE should stand on "abandonware" and "warez" in general.
Most of what we do is provide access to, and some level of support for software which is (in some respect) commercial, but not available to the general public by any other means. What we do not do is make software which people can freely buy available for free on our site. (as you point out, we cannot be held responsible for what users do in private messages through our service without blanket invasion of the privacy of those messages)
I personally do not agree with software piracy, in general. I think users of good software, who expect support for their software (and you may not think you do, but when it goes wrong and you don't have time to fix it ... you do) should expect to pay for it.
However, from my first statement in this indented section, I cannot see why "abandonware" should be off-limits to RaGEZON developers, if it is beneficial to them to get hold of it, and use it.
In the instance where PT servers don't work well (easily and with good general compatibility) on x64 Windows OS, and x86 Windows OS are becoming a dying breed, I think it is absolutely beneficial to us if we are to continue to develop from the old leaks we have.
[highlight]I am not MentaL![/highlight] It's not my site, and I don't have the final say. I've mentioned the idea in his presence before, and he made no comment one way or the other. This leaves "abandonware" officially as "warez" on RZ in my view.
I have asked the Visors+ team for clarification. (a yay, or nay) I would expect them to take a lead from the sub-admin(s) who should probably check with MentaL. (and that is why we have "staff rank"
) I don't really expect a "fast" answer.
.
:
:
tt1:
