Group thoughts: "abandonware"

  • Thread starter Thread starter donutbandit
  • Start date Start date
D

donutbandit

Is there really any such thing as abandonware? If so, could it be classed
as "free" when the maker/owner has either disappeared or no longer exists?

The question just came to me whan I discovered that Syntrillium was bought
out by Adobe last year. Adobe now states that all of Syntrillium's software
except Cool Edit Pro has been dropped.

There are still downloads available for Cool Edit 2000 and Wind Chimes.
Both were shareware. Now that Syntrillium no longer exists and the new
owner has dropped these, how would you classify them? There is no owner any
more to pay the shareware fee to, and the new owner does not recognize
them.
 
First of all, I'm no lawyer, and the copyright laws probably vary in various
countries but that issue is clouded by the interlocking copyright treaties
these countries enter into. But technically, if Adobe hasn't placed the
products in public domain or turned them into open source, they still own
all rights to those products. Just because they no longer support them
doesn't mean they aren't using the technology found in those products. I
wouldn't expect to be able to "reverse engineer" those applications for
profit.

On the other hand, if they make no effort to pull the products from the
download sites, that must mean they don't care if people use these programs.
I would download and use these programs.
 
JunkMonkey said:
First of all, I'm no lawyer, and the copyright laws probably vary in various
countries but that issue is clouded by the interlocking copyright treaties
these countries enter into. But technically, if Adobe hasn't placed the
products in public domain or turned them into open source, they still own
all rights to those products. Just because they no longer support them
doesn't mean they aren't using the technology found in those products. I
wouldn't expect to be able to "reverse engineer" those applications for
profit.

On the other hand, if they make no effort to pull the products from the
download sites, that must mean they don't care if people use these programs.
I would download and use these programs.
Click to expand...

But now they are unregistrable-and still shareware. I think Adobe should
offer a way to unlock it, via secure server that genrates a code? or use it
one of iy's demo modes.
 
donutbandit said:
Is there really any such thing as abandonware? If so, could it be
classed as "free" when the maker/owner has either disappeared or no
longer exists?

The question just came to me whan I discovered that Syntrillium was
bought out by Adobe last year. Adobe now states that all of
Syntrillium's software except Cool Edit Pro has been dropped.

There are still downloads available for Cool Edit 2000 and Wind
Chimes. Both were shareware. Now that Syntrillium no longer exists
and the new owner has dropped these, how would you classify them?
There is no owner any more to pay the shareware fee to, and the new
owner does not recognize them.
Click to expand...
The only 'abandonware' I've ever used was Gravity News Reader. I think the
original developer (Microplanet ?) went belly up or something, or maybe just
abandoned it and someone else took it over and is furthering it a bit but
it's now freeware. :)
 
donutbandit <[email protected]> wrote:
Click to expand...
Is there really any such thing as abandonware? If so, could it be classed
as "free" when the maker/owner has either disappeared or no longer exists?
Click to expand...

I take it that you mean commercial software, rather than freeware.
This distinction caused me to misunderstand the PL definition awhile
back.
The question just came to me whan I discovered that Syntrillium was bought
out by Adobe last year. Adobe now states that all of Syntrillium's software
except Cool Edit Pro has been dropped.
Click to expand...
There are still downloads available for Cool Edit 2000 and Wind Chimes.
Both were shareware. Now that Syntrillium no longer exists and the new
owner has dropped these, how would you classify them? There is no owner any
more to pay the shareware fee to, and the new owner does not recognize
them.
Click to expand...

There is an owner: Adobe.

I would classify commercial programs in which it is not possible to
pay for as deadware.

The license is still valid. I think it's 75 years here in the states.

Now, if you are referring to freeware versions released before the
shareware versions it's a different ball game. Otherwise, my opinion
is the program is dead, rather than free... due to abandonment.

In the end you decide what you install and run on your computer.
It's a matter of conscience, which you obviously possess.
 
There is an owner: Adobe.
Click to expand...

There is almost always an "owner" for software. Very little software is
in the public domain (and in any case, one can reasonably conclude that
the "owner" of anything in the public domain is the public).
I would classify commercial programs in which it is not possible to
pay for as deadware.
Click to expand...

How would you define the distinction between "abandonware" and
"deadware"? At present, I don't understand the need for yet *another*
term.
The license is still valid. I think it's 75 years here in the states.
Click to expand...

I think what you mean here is "copyright," not "license." In the U.S.,
the copyright term of a corporate-created work is 90 years. If
Syntrillium's software was copyrighted in the name of the company [rather
than in the name(s) of any individual developer(s)], and Adobe acquired
those copyrights when it bought Syntrillium, then the software in
question will be in copyright for 90 years from it's creation, or until
Adobe or its successors decide to put it in the public domain.

Presuming the above is the case and Adobe has not made it PD, then the
situation with Cool Edit 2000 is that it is software for which Adobe no
longer offers a license. That in itself makes it neither dead nor
abandoned, necessarily -- Adobe might allow someone else to take over
development, for instance.
Now, if you are referring to freeware versions released before the
shareware versions it's a different ball game. Otherwise, my opinion
is the program is dead, rather than free... due to abandonment.
Click to expand...

How would you define the difference between "dead/abandoned" and "free"?
Do you mean "free" as in "freeware" or "free" as in "free software"?
Obviously, Cool Edit 2000 is not "free software" and won't be unless or
until it is open-sourced. But why isn't it now "freeware"?


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael M. ~~ (e-mail address removed) ~~ New York City, NY USA |
| "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely |
| under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
There is almost always an "owner" for software. Very little software is
in the public domain (and in any case, one can reasonably conclude that
the "owner" of anything in the public domain is the public).
Click to expand...
How would you define the distinction between "abandonware" and
"deadware"? At present, I don't understand the need for yet *another*
term.
Click to expand...

I'm not proposing another term. I just used the same format to apply
the label I personally term to commercial software that is impossible
to buy.
I think what you mean here is "copyright," not "license." In the U.S.,
the copyright term of a corporate-created work is 90 years. If
Syntrillium's software was copyrighted in the name of the company [rather
than in the name(s) of any individual developer(s)], and Adobe acquired
those copyrights when it bought Syntrillium, then the software in
question will be in copyright for 90 years from it's creation, or until
Adobe or its successors decide to put it in the public domain.
Click to expand...
Presuming the above is the case and Adobe has not made it PD, then the
situation with Cool Edit 2000 is that it is software for which Adobe no
longer offers a license. That in itself makes it neither dead nor
abandoned, necessarily -- Adobe might allow someone else to take over
development, for instance.
Click to expand...

I think development was stopped indefinitely iirc.
How would you define the difference between "dead/abandoned" and "free"?
Do you mean "free" as in "freeware" or "free" as in "free software"?
Obviously, Cool Edit 2000 is not "free software" and won't be unless or
until it is open-sourced. But why isn't it now "freeware"?
Click to expand...

I do not believe any software is free or freeware unless specifically
designated as such by the owner, in this case Adobe. Adobe has not
done so.

That is, the public does not possess the power to designate software
for any reason. The fact a program is abandoned, but still available
at some places does not make it free or freeware. It is still
shareware, or whatever the terms of the license states.

Why isn't it now freeware? It is now warez if you are get and run it
in violation of the EULA.

Freeware is a somewhat artificial term applied by the author/owner,
not by the public.
 
I do not believe any software is free or freeware unless specifically
designated as such by the owner, in this case Adobe. Adobe has not
done so.

That is, the public does not possess the power to designate software
for any reason. The fact a program is abandoned, but still available
at some places does not make it free or freeware. It is still
shareware, or whatever the terms of the license states.

Why isn't it now freeware? It is now warez if you are get and run it
in violation of the EULA.
Click to expand...

What EULA? There is no license -- Adobe no longer issues one. How can
you be in violation of something that doesn't exist?

I could see calling it "warez" if, in order to run Cool Edit 2000, you
need a crack that gets around whatever authentication seheme the original
developers/licensors had put in place. But if you don't, then it's not
warez.


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael M. ~~ (e-mail address removed) ~~ New York City, NY USA |
| "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely |
| under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
...
Just as in any other commercial ventures, a company can purchase the rights
to a specific product (e.g. software), just to cease further development and
distribution. In such a manner they can make the market shares larger for
other "similar" products they own the rights to.

I think that is what happened to Cool Edit.
What EULA? There is no license -- Adobe no longer issues one. How can
you be in violation of something that doesn't exist?

I could see calling it "warez" if, in order to run Cool Edit 2000, you
need a crack that gets around whatever authentication seheme the original
developers/licensors had put in place. But if you don't, then it's not
warez.
Click to expand...

Whether it would be needed to "crack" it to be able to use it or not,
doesn't make any difference, since there most certain were some restrictions
on how to obtain and use the software before they abandoned it. Unless
explicitly expressed, those restrictions still apply.

An example of abandonware that were explicitly set free is "Visual Thought".

Hence, the term "abandonware" does not imply anything about whether it's
"free" or not, but gives useful information as we then know that there will
be no further development, no bugfixes and no support.

// Bjorn A
 
mcubed <[email protected]> wrote:
Click to expand...
What EULA? There is no license -- Adobe no longer issues one. How can
you be in violation of something that doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

The thread began stating that Cool Edit Pro is shareware:

"There are still downloads available for Cool Edit 2000 and Wind
Chimes. Both were shareware. Now that Syntrillium no longer exists and
the new owner has dropped these, how would you classify them? There is
no owner any more to pay the shareware fee to, and the new owner does
not recognize them."

If Adobe rescended the existing license I stand corrected. I do not
believe they did though.

http://www.adobe.com/store/products/master.jhtml?id=catAudition
I could see calling it "warez" if, in order to run Cool Edit 2000, you
need a crack that gets around whatever authentication seheme the original
developers/licensors had put in place. But if you don't, then it's not
warez.
Click to expand...

Software does not require authentication in order to be warez does it?
All required is violation of the license or copyright isn't it? That
is, warez = illegally running software?
 
Software does not require authentication in order to be warez does it?
All required is violation of the license or copyright isn't it? That
is, warez = illegally running software?
Click to expand...

My understanding of the definition is that "warez" is cracked shareware
or commercial software -- cracked in such a way as to by-pass any
authentication required. I don't believe there is a strictly "legal"
definition of "warez"; that is, I don't think it's a legal term at all,
just a colloquial one. If you use a shareware program that has no
authentication scheme in place beyond the trial period specified by the
license agreement, I wouldn't say that makes the software "warez." I
would call that a license violation.

The only ways to violate copyright are to take some of code of a
copyrighted program for your own or another program without following the
protocols specified by the license agreement (for example, modifying a
GPL'ed program and redistributing your modifications under a licensing
scheme prohibited by the GPL), or to make a copy of the software that is
prohibited by the license agreement (for example, copying a program for a
friend to use, or installing it to a second computer when you've paid for
a license to use it on only one computer). Simple running a copyrighted
program is not itself a violation of copyright. You violate copyright
when you *copy*, except when that copy is specifically allowed by fair
use statues or by the license agreement; you violate the license when you
use the software in such a way that is not permitted by the license.
Warez, to me, implies redistribution -- warez newsgroups, warez FTP
sites, warez channels, etc. -- and therefore involves copyright
violations. Using unlicensed software might -- or might not -- violate
license agreements, depending upon the nature of the software and whether
any license exists, but I wouldn't say that makes it warez.


--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael M. ~~ (e-mail address removed) ~~ New York City, NY USA |
| "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely |
| under conditions of absolute reality;..." --S. Jackson |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
 
Back
Top