3 ms·

I think software that is no longer supported should go into the public domain. If I can't buy it or get support, then I shouldn't have to worry about copying i

I think software that is no longer supported should go into the public domain. If I can't buy it or get support, then I shouldn't have to worry about copying it. Actually, this should be valid for everything.

brailsafe 6y ago
I'm running Omnifocus 2 on my mac, and it's been broken partially since Big Sur. Omnigroup doesn't support it, won't release a patch, and sells Omnifocus 3 as a separate product. I'd love to be able to just fix this small error and continue using the thing I bought.
coldpie 6y ago
How do you define "no longer supported"? Easiest answer is to restore copyright length to a sane amount of time. Prior to 1978, it was 28 years, optionally extendable to another 28 years. Our current conception of effectively-infinite copyright is very new, and I think has had incredibly harmful effects. https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2020/shrinking/ https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2020/shrinking...
- Mandatum 6y ago
  Yeah we end standard support release+2 years and extended support release+5 years for major versions. Given that it's still mostly the same core code that was implemented 10 years ago, not sure how this would gel.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
But the brand name is still protected; the last version of a product named Adobe Acrobat Reader is from last year. The PDF standard is open, and there are plenty of reader alternatives with all kinds of licenses; if Acrobat was some kind of unique thing that was no longer supported or you could no longer get a legal copy, then you'd have more of a point.
- cestith 6y ago
  Adobe Reader for DOS is not supported, and many of the open source and third party commercial alternatives never supported DOS. What's even more nuanced here is later versions of Adobe Reader are free to download and often distributed by third parties.
  - anthk 6y ago
    I think there was a GhostScript PS/PDF viewer for DOS. https://www.nomdo.nl/psview.htm https://www.nomdo.nl/psview.htm https://www.nomdo.nl/gs.htm https://www.nomdo.nl/gs.htm
    - cestith 6y ago
      Good to know. Thanks.
quietbritishjim 6y ago
I suppose one problem with this is when you release a new version that substantially overlaps with the previous version. If I release WidgetReader 2.0 that has 90% of the code shared with WidgetReader 1.0, and only sell new licences to the new version, should I be obliged to allow free access to WidgetReader 1.0? What about when I release WidgetReader 1.1? Or if I give free upgrades to all existing licence holders to 1.0? (Free upgrades are actually most likely when the upgrade is especially small e.g. a patch to fix some bug, but by your rules they're almost the worst because now there are no supported installations of the old version left at all.) For that matter, what if I rewrite the whole code base but keep the same general functionality and target audience - does that change things? If so then you've just disincentivised certain types of refactors even though they have very little impact on the users. Of course there is a big gap, both in code and functionality, between Acrobat 1.0 and the current version but it's still the same product in theory, so it leaves open the question of where to draw the line.
- mrweasel 6y ago
  I don't think the argument was that you should hand over the source code. It's just that you shouldn't be able to legally go after others distributing the old version. There is an issue with the period right after your WidgetReader 2.0 is released. Most will be perfectly happy with version 1 (many may even prefer it) and you'll have a hard time selling the new version, given that you're competing with your own old and now free version. Perhaps it should be more like: 10 years after the end of life date. It's tricky, I want software companies to be able to make money on sell their software, and not having to rely on subscriptions, but I also feel that we should be able to legally copy 25 year old video games and software for DOS 6.22.
  - quietbritishjim 6y ago
    I understood there was no pressure to release source code, I was just using source code overlap as a measure of similarity. An expiry time, like 10 years, sounds a lot more reasonable. It's a bit like the expiry for copyright and pantents, at least in their original concepts. Come to think of it, maybe the solution is simply to dramatically reduce copyright expiry, maybe to a simple fixed 10 years for creation point. That would probably benefit everything, not just software.

brailsafe 6y ago

I'm running Omnifocus 2 on my mac, and it's been broken partially since Big Sur. Omnigroup doesn't support it, won't release a patch, and sells Omnifocus 3 as a separate product. I'd love to be able to just fix this small error and continue using the thing I bought.

coldpie 6y ago

How do you define "no longer supported"? Easiest answer is to restore copyright length to a sane amount of time. Prior to 1978, it was 28 years, optionally extendable to another 28 years. Our current conception of effectively-infinite copyright is very new, and I think has had incredibly harmful effects. https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2020/shrinking/ https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2020/shrinking...

Mandatum 6y ago
Yeah we end standard support release+2 years and extended support release+5 years for major versions. Given that it's still mostly the same core code that was implemented 10 years ago, not sure how this would gel.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

But the brand name is still protected; the last version of a product named Adobe Acrobat Reader is from last year. The PDF standard is open, and there are plenty of reader alternatives with all kinds of licenses; if Acrobat was some kind of unique thing that was no longer supported or you could no longer get a legal copy, then you'd have more of a point.

cestith 6y ago
Adobe Reader for DOS is not supported, and many of the open source and third party commercial alternatives never supported DOS. What's even more nuanced here is later versions of Adobe Reader are free to download and often distributed by third parties.
- anthk 6y ago
  I think there was a GhostScript PS/PDF viewer for DOS. https://www.nomdo.nl/psview.htm https://www.nomdo.nl/psview.htm https://www.nomdo.nl/gs.htm https://www.nomdo.nl/gs.htm
  - cestith 6y ago
    Good to know. Thanks.

quietbritishjim 6y ago

I suppose one problem with this is when you release a new version that substantially overlaps with the previous version. If I release WidgetReader 2.0 that has 90% of the code shared with WidgetReader 1.0, and only sell new licences to the new version, should I be obliged to allow free access to WidgetReader 1.0? What about when I release WidgetReader 1.1? Or if I give free upgrades to all existing licence holders to 1.0? (Free upgrades are actually most likely when the upgrade is especially small e.g. a patch to fix some bug, but by your rules they're almost the worst because now there are no supported installations of the old version left at all.) For that matter, what if I rewrite the whole code base but keep the same general functionality and target audience - does that change things? If so then you've just disincentivised certain types of refactors even though they have very little impact on the users. Of course there is a big gap, both in code and functionality, between Acrobat 1.0 and the current version but it's still the same product in theory, so it leaves open the question of where to draw the line.

mrweasel 6y ago
I don't think the argument was that you should hand over the source code. It's just that you shouldn't be able to legally go after others distributing the old version. There is an issue with the period right after your WidgetReader 2.0 is released. Most will be perfectly happy with version 1 (many may even prefer it) and you'll have a hard time selling the new version, given that you're competing with your own old and now free version. Perhaps it should be more like: 10 years after the end of life date. It's tricky, I want software companies to be able to make money on sell their software, and not having to rely on subscriptions, but I also feel that we should be able to legally copy 25 year old video games and software for DOS 6.22.
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  I understood there was no pressure to release source code, I was just using source code overlap as a measure of similarity. An expiry time, like 10 years, sounds a lot more reasonable. It's a bit like the expiry for copyright and pantents, at least in their original concepts. Come to think of it, maybe the solution is simply to dramatically reduce copyright expiry, maybe to a simple fixed 10 years for creation point. That would probably benefit everything, not just software.