QL Commercial Software Preservation

[RWAP]

Unfortunately I do not know - if they were both written by the same person then the answer is probably YES.

I wasn't involved in the original contact with the copyright holders for Computer One - Dilwyn might know?

[tofro]

Oh yeah!
I have been looking for that version for ages now! Would be good if we could make that openly available!

Tobias

[dilwyn]

Unfortunately I do not know - if they were both written by the same person then the answer is probably YES.

I wasn't involved in the original contact with the copyright holders for Computer One - Dilwyn might know?

I only have specific permission for the Computer One stuff already on my website - C1 Monitor and Pascal. Would welcome being able to put the Assembler on as well, for example.

The contact for Computer One was Tony Cheal, and after Computer One stopped advertising QL software in the 1980s sometime, they were sol for a while by Mark Hughes at Compware, if anyone is in contact with either of those people to ask.

[RWAP]

We have at least preserved the Profession Monitor v2.02 - it says that it is (c) Computer One and written by Tony Cheal - however, I have no idea who contacted Tony Cheal originally....

It is interesting that the version on Dilwyn's site is v2.00 - are we sure that is the C1 Monitor (and not the professional version)? We have a v1.xx of C1 Monitor amongst the preservation files

If someone can track down Tony Cheal (in Cambridge) and get in touch - maybe you could ask about releasing the other computer one titles - we don't even appear to have a copy of computer 1 C !!

[RWAP]

I think I have found Tony on LinkedIn - I have sent him an email to see

[ql_freak]

Unfortunately I do not know - if they were both written by the same person then the answer is probably YES.

I wasn't involved in the original contact with the copyright holders for Computer One - Dilwyn might know?

I have now had a look into the manual. Author is Tony Cheal (as for normal C1 Monitor). BTW: The program itself looks nearly exactly as the original C1 Monitor, there are only new (much improved) commands and possibilities. The manual is totally different, and you most probably also need the original C1 manual, where the details and usage are explained.

I only have specific permission for the Computer One stuff already on my website - C1 Monitor and Pascal. Would welcome being able to put the Assembler on as well, for example.

I think I have a copy of C1 Assembler (at least the _exe file).

The contact for Computer One was Tony Cheal, and after Computer One stopped advertising QL software in the 1980s sometime, they were sol for a while by Mark Hughes at Compware, if anyone is in contact with either of those people to ask.

Yes this is right, Professional Monitor has been released from Compware (looked into the manual).

I have now taken a picture with my digicam and OCRed it with (a very old version) Abby FineReader. The result is promising (the photo was not perfect, I think I could do it better for using it for OCR). The manual is less than 40 pages, so it should be possible to OCR it completely.

[sdmicro]

I just wanted to give my input on the matter of re-releasing old software programs or placing them into the public domain. As a software publisher of 30+ years standing I can assure anyone that it is not always a straightforward business. A package may be very old and not currently being sold but that entitles no-one to just copy and use such software. The copyright is still held by someone, somewhere and their permission must be sought and granted.

Essentially, programs fall into two categories; those produced in-house by a software company and those bought in or contracted from 3rd party programmers. In the former case, copyright is owned by the software house and if the principle director or partners or sole proprietor is contacted he or she can give permission. A grey area here is if a limited company has been dissolved it may not be clear who owns any ‘assets’ but generally it is enough for the former owners to say ‘yes’.

The 2nd category involves software developed by a private programmer who has entered into an agreement with the software firm to sell his or her work. Here a written contract will stipulate terms such as royalty rates and length of agreement, usually up to 5 years. In the fast moving world of computers, few arrangements will be extended beyond this period and thus a package will fall into disuse, no longer being marketed. In such common cases, contacting the former publisher is only half the battle since the copyright remains with the author. Even if the company has kept records going back 30 years or more, how many addresses will still be correct? Hardly any. Chances are that publisher/author will have had no contact since their agreement expired.

In my case, I was able to grant permission for my firm’s old QL business software to be used in the heritage project simply because I wrote it myself. When we moved on to other micros such as the Amstrads we also published software by external coders who did not work for the company. Most of these were on royalty contracts for a certain period of time. A few others had an agreement whereby a certain number of copies were bought in advance, say 100. If sales ever exceeded this we could purchase more. What many users don’t realise is that often a company just markets a package and never owns the copyright unless it was bought outright.

There can be other reasons why a software producer won’t allow their products to become “PD”. For example, ever heard of Microsoft allowing even their oldest packages to be freely distributed? OK, even they might not sue a single user for copying an MSDOS floppy disc (though Ebay warns every seller to be careful that the media being sold is original) but they won’t ever give the impression that it is safe so to do. When we took over LocoScript I was contacted by someone who was running a charity in Brazil to educate street children to use WIMP software. MS refused to let them use even the oldest versions of Windows but I allowed them to use BASIC2 (programmed by Locomotive) under GEM.

However, I have never allowed any versions of the LocoScript word processor or Mallard BASIC whether on PCW or PC to become classified as`”freeware”. This is because we actually still sell the odd program mostly on CD or USB stick these days and CP/M for the old ZX Spectrum+3 has acquired classic retro status. I paid a lot of money for the licences in 1999 and if they can still earn a few bob which covers the running costs of the legacy web site then why not? As a matter of fact there are still some professionals using the LocoScript/File/Mail system to run complex databases because it has no equal in the modern market. The problem with classifying some of our software as “freeware” is that everyone then thinks every program is in the same category. I guess that is MS’s thinking too. Say if they let go of every version of Windows up to ME, people would think, “oh we can pass XP or Vista around now then”. Mind you, had I made even a fraction of the fortune Mr Gates has amassed then I wouldn’t worry too much. In his case I’m sure a control factor comes into play.

In summary, I am totally with Rich Mellor on this. No program however humble or old should be placed on a download site unless and until the copyright holder’s permission has been sought and obtained. There is a musical analogy. In my spare time I am a singer/songwriter/guitarist who has played on a semi-pro basis (eg for money). Say I wanted to record a demo CD. I couldn’t just use other artist’s songs – even if I gave the disc away for promo purposes. Instead a fee has to be paid (usually the equivalent of 1000 copies of a song) even if I just burn 10 off. It’s the same principle really. The respect for other people’s (intellectual) property. I realise the net often flouts this with a blanket ‘everything for free’ attitude. But that doesn’t make it right.

On the subject of new software, are we talking about programs to run on an original black box QL or the emulators or both? Not sure I understand what the requirement is. Surely there is no longer any sort of commercial market? Maybe I’m missing the point but towards the end of the (long) run of the excellent QL Today there seemed to be frustration at the fact that few new products were being released or even planned. The realisation that the QL, in any form, could not compete with modern PCs, gradually dawned on the enthusiasts. To be honest, I don’t think there was any chance it ever could, certainly not beyond the 1990s. And yet there was often talk of developing a ‘killer’ application that could bring people flocking back to the QL. What could this have possibly been? I know some QL folk won’t like this but the QL is a retro format. Greatly superior to many others of the genre but still a retro format. The Amiga was once graphics king and the ST was the music machine but in the end they were trumped by the PC’s power. The fact that they had specialities didn’t save them in the end. I can perfectly understand why some users like to revisit their computing past or some younger folk want to discover a different platform. It is fun.

What the QL has is a rich, interesting, chequered history as the first proper multitasking micro which, if Sinclair had got it right and spent money on things like disc drives instead of silly electric trikes, might have taken on the IBM/Clone PCs as a professional computer. Even as it was, one could reasonably use an expanded QL as an alternative to a PC at least until the early 1990s. But in all honesty, would anyone now use a QL for daily tasks such as word processing or DTP in preference to Windows? Everyone uses the QL forum via a PC. The net never reached Sinclairville. So what ‘new’ QL applications are worth considering? Are there any gaps in the QL armoury? If so by all means fill them.

I’m really not trying to put writers off. If someone wants to create a new game then great. I just can’t see why anyone would want to write a new WP or spreadsheet or database. A few years back we were approached by a presumably very intelligent person (I think he was a professor) who had built a huge LocoFile database of (if I recall correctly) medicines. He assured us the information was unique and he thought we could release it as a new product. As LocoFile works within LocoScript it would be necessary to supply the whole package together with the database for users to access the information. He really thought people would buy and learn to use an MSDOS application and that we could handle the finance and marketing. I knew this was nonsense. My advice to him was simply to get the data converted to a modern format such as MS Access as it was the information which was the selling point not the software. My point is there is nothing that can bring a new audience to an old program or platform. Except curiosity.

I know my view is that of an early QL software developer who dropped out of the market when it became obvious that it wasn’t being used by many small businesses and sales would remain low. Since then I’ve been an outsider who only fairly recently caught up with events by purchasing the QL Today DVD. I retain a real affection for the QL and am just giving my perspective. Best wishes to all.


-

[1024MAK]

@sdmicro - I have nothing against people or companies continuing to make their software available to buy.
What is your answer to the question of trying to save software that is no longer available from any legal source? Once saved, does the community just keep it locked up for 80 years (or whatever timescale the copyright protection lasts for)?
Of course if the copyright holder or original programmer gives permission that makes the software available (to buy or for free) that's fine.
But if no one can be found to give permission, what then?

As to new software, none of the retro computers has much of a market for new software. But some people do like writing / developing for fun. Yes, mostly games, sometimes utilities. And in some cases these are sold, in other cases they are put on line and can be downloaded for free.

Why, well, it's more fun to program a retro computer than a modern Windows system.

Mark

[RWAP]

What is your answer to the question of trying to save software that is no longer available from any legal source? Once saved, does the community just keep it locked up for 80 years (or whatever timescale the copyright protection lasts for)?
Of course if the copyright holder or original programmer gives permission that makes the software available (to buy or for free) that's fine.
But if no one can be found to give permission, what then?

There is no answer under current legislation - the copyright belongs to the original copyright holder - so there is nothing that can legally be done with the software.

Actually, as has been shown already, tracking down the copyright holders and getting their permission is not an impossible task - it just takes a lot of time - so more hands to the pump please (as everyone seems to think it is up to me to do this!).

If there is some of the older QL software out there that you want to be re-released, then great - go out and try to find the copyright holder, rather than waiting for someone else to do it.

[sdmicro]

@sdmicro - I have nothing against people or companies continuing to make their software available to buy.
What is your answer to the question of trying to save software that is no longer available from any legal source? Once saved, does the community just keep it locked up for 80 years (or whatever timescale the copyright protection lasts for)?
Of course if the copyright holder or original programmer gives permission that makes the software available (to buy or for free) that's fine.
But if no one can be found to give permission, what then?

As to new software, none of the retro computers has much of a market for new software. But some people do like writing / developing for fun. Yes, mostly games, sometimes utilities. And in some cases these are sold, in other cases they are put on line and can be downloaded for free.

Why, well, it's more fun to program a retro computer than a modern Windows system.

Well, there is an "abandonware" concept whereby if an old piece of software falls into disuse then people claim a right to use it but I don't think this has any legal standing. I agree it is frustrating when the only intention is to have a bit of fun running an old program with no intent to commercial gain. I also agree that it is much more intellectually rewarding to write applications for retro computers. Windows is rather a sterile environment by comparison.

Steve.