> Begin forwarded message: > > From: webobjects-dev-ow...@lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: Abandonware??? > Date: October 5, 2015 at 6:02:01 PM EDT > To: p...@me.com > > You are not allowed to post to this mailing list, and your message has > been automatically rejected. If you think that your messages are > being rejected in error, contact the mailing list owner at > webobjects-dev-ow...@lists.apple.com. > > > From: Paul Yu <p...@me.com> > Subject: Re: Abandonware??? > Date: October 5, 2015 at 6:01:56 PM EDT > To: Ray Kiddy <r...@ganymede.org> > Cc: webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com > > > Are the copyright laws more favorable to the consumer in these cases in EU > laws? > > The issue here is some of us are still making a living off of this “product”. > Because of the legal limbo that we find ourselves, we are left in very > difficult situations. With Java and all these other technologies moving > forward. > > Paul > >> >> On Oct 5, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Ray Kiddy <r...@ganymede.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:54:37 -0400 >> David LeBer <dleber_wo...@codeferous.com> wrote: >> >>> WebObjects - the set of frameworks used by Apple == Not Abandonware >>> WebObjects - the set of frameworks used/enhanced/patched by the >>> community through Wonder == Not Abandonware >>> WebObjects - the set of frameworks supplied by Apple as a supported >>> product == Abandonware >>> >>> My opinion. >>> >>> D >> >> On Mon, 05 Oct 2015 12:23:25 -0300 >> Henrique Prange <hpra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Paul, >>> >>> "Although such software is usually still under copyright, the owner >>> may not be tracking or enforcing copyright violations." >>> >>> Apple doesn’t need to release the copyright to turn WebObjects into >>> Abandonware. I see no problem if we declare WebObjects as Abandonware >>> and Apple doesn’t enforce its copyright. The real question is: what >>> benefits do we have if WebObjects becomes Abandonware? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Henrique >> >> There is a benefit. For one thing, the TreasureBoat project could have >> gone forward. But there seems to be an understandable reluctance to >> declare that WebObjects (as defined in LeBer-III), is abandonware to >> the extent that the Oracle v Google decision on Java APIs >> (https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google) would not apply to it. >> >> When we (by some definition of "we", I have no idea what) agree that >> that case does not apply because it is abandonware, TB could start >> again in a heart-beat. >> >> There seem to be too many unknowns, now, to justify the work. >> >> - ray >> >>> >>>> On 2 de out de 2015, at 20:43, Paul Yu <p...@mac.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 2, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Paul Yu <p...@me.com >>>>> <mailto:p...@me.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Upon further reading of the wiki page. >>>>> >>>>> Due to copyright enforcement duration, it does us no good for us >>>>> to declare WebObjects and its frameworks abandoned by Apple. >>>>> Since Apple has not and will probably not release it copyright >>>>> ownership on the software. >>>>> >>>>>> >> >> <snip> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >> Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/pyu%40mac.com >> >> This email sent to p...@mac.com > > > >
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
