Talk:Abandonware/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bad Definiton of Abandonware Fan

"An abandonware fan is a video game player who thinks that video games that are no longer on the market are more fun than video games that are still on the market." IMO, just becuase you like abandonware doesn't mean that you think it's more fun than current games. It just means that you enjoy playing games that are old, that's all. Am I making sense here?

If you don't like it, change it to something better. That is the essence of Wiki. Embrace the Wiki. Love the Wiki. Become addicted to the Wiki. Dump the Wiki for six months then come back to the Wiki. Nifboy 22:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Sopwith

I thought sopwith was shareware....It was with a pack of several arcade games for me. Maybe this should be mentioned? --199.224.81.132 12:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The original author - www.davidlclark.com - offers 'Sopwith the author's edition' for free, along with its source code (GPL). Neither he nor the Sopwith wikipedia page say anything about the current status of the older versions. The 'third-party' derivatives are free too, as far as I know. --theultramage 00:01, 25 May 2006

Sopwith is not abandonware, it's freeware. Why is this listed?

Move software made available

Major software made available needs to be moved to List of freeware games and merged with the list there because released software is not abandonware. The corresponding parts of this talk page need to be added to List of freeware games's talk page. Sleigh 12:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Many of the titles are not Freely_redistributable_software. I've personally defined freeware as FRS, but I notice that the Freeware article doesn't do so, although there is a bit of discussion on the talk page on the topic. I personally think that getting rid of that list on this page would be a blessing. :-) Do people think freeware/frs distinction is an issue? evktalo 09:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the list, and added a remark about the freeware/frs distinction. I think it is important to mention the possible differences, though it's not a major issue. Sega381 03:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Open Source

Very POV article. Snowspinner 03:50, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, uh, we'd like to have a few more specifics before baldly declaring an article "POV". What exactly do you think is biased? Remember that NPOV is not about editing out controversial POVs, but about attributing them to specific parties, without endorsing any as "more true". Stan 03:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any major problem with this page either.--Gadfium 04:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My main objection to it is that it seems to operate from the assumption that Abandonware is basically good, if occasionally mistaken in assuming something is abandoned when it isn't. There doesn't seem to be any argument against abandonware as a whole except to note that it is not actually legal. Also, towards the end, when you get to the stubbier paragraphs, it takes on a bit more of a biased approach. Or I could be overreacting and firmly voted down. These things happen. =) Snowspinner 04:06, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article is quite clear that Abandonware is not legal to distribute (in most jurisdictions). It does differ from simple piracy. I would agree that the original author or authors (of which I'm not one) have some POV, but I don't think it's excessive. The remark about copyright extension probably does go too far.--Gadfium 04:12, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be deleted or anything, but I think a paragraph about the potential harms of abandonware needs to be added, and the copyright extension needs to go. I'm just not quite qualified to do the potential harms of abandonware paragraph, though I'll do it anyway if no one else wants to. Snowspinner 04:21, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Assumption that abandonware is good" is kind of vague - do you have a specific phrase or wording that seems objectionable? Noting that it is illegal seems like a pretty clear negative. I'd be interested to hear about the potential harms, you must know more about it than I do, so write away and we'll all tinker with the result. Stan 04:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I've fixed it. Snowspinner 15:17, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do we still need the NPOV warning? If so, what problems remain to be cleared? - David Gerard 08:03, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free to take the NPOV tag out. =) Snowspinner 15:54, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Someone has just mentioned to me on a forum that the "External Links" section is named "Legal" Abandonware titles. The 'Legal' term is misleading because it assumes that all the content of those sites is now in the public domain, which is not true. Aadlg 13:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The intention is to have legal "abandonware" sites listed, instead of "legal" abandonware ones. People just keep adding them illegal sites. :-) evktalo 09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't those links be moved to the Freeware article? Liberated Games, for example, is not about Abandoned games, its about propietary games that became freeware (or released the source code).Sega381 03:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Change of legality in the United States?

Someone please look into this; The legality of abandonware seems to have moved into the gray area-or is it totally legal now? http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2006/11/us_copyright_to.html DarkProdigy 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is legal to hack copy protection on old games for archival purposes. Still not legal to pass it around, though. Nifboy 04:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Freeware section

Shouldn't the freeware note go in the freeware article? Does that information really belong in the Abandonware article? It is a nice clarification, but I'm not sure it is appropiate here... Sega381 13:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments only apply to abandoned freeware - I am not sure they are appropriate for freeware in general, which seems to have a significantly different definition than the MS-DOS freeware I'm familiar with which usually has source code. Like antique v. abandoned, it's a fine line. There isn't enough historical research to have firm definitions of terms. Scott1329m 13:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"(as an example, there are ports to MS-DOS of GNU awk and other utilities that date from the late 1980s, so open source licenses of this nature significantly predated the open source movement)"

OK, I know what MS-DOS is and I know what GNU awk is, but what is this trying to say? ItsProgrammable 04:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

<re-reading sentence> Not only do I have no idea what the sentence is trying to say, I'm unclear (come to think of it) why the entire section, of which it is a part, belongs here. Why is an article on "abandonware" attempting to define "freeware"?-Barte 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The attempt to define freeware as a sub-classification of abandonware is part of the attempt to show "abandonware" is an overly broad classification that -- besides games -- includes freeware that has been abandoned (no one could say GNU awk for DOS is not abandonware), commercial software, etc etc etc -- abandonware is a class, not a specific type of software like the other -ware words such as shareware. (The only other -ware word I can think of that defines a class is "shovelware".) In light of today's open source movement, historical freeware is of interest because it shows the ethos of GNU and free software has deep roots in the past. In the context of historical research (which this section tries to highlight, to show that abandonware is more than pirating old games!), the MS-DOS port of GNU awk is historically significant because it shows the GNU ethos at a very early date (I can't remember but at least by '86 or so). That was what the cryptic sentence was trying to say, but this may be too much original research for Wiki tastes, even though it is simply trying to get a grip on the vague terminology. Of course, I may be the only historical researcher into the mid 1980s DOS world ever, so this may be irrelevant. My wiki entries try to highlight some of this old software. See PC-LISP, As Easy As, Turbo Debugger, WordPerfect 4.1, and others. I've added screen shots and clarification to other articles about what is now abandonware. My whole point about this is to capture some of this computer history before it is lost forever. There's more to abandonware than games -- and the "more" is historically significant to the history of computing. It may be, however, that the history of computing is too irrelevant to preserve. Or, maybe abandonware needs to be divided into games vs other software. Scott1329m 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the terms tend to blend and that "abandonware" is somewhat blurry. When I first wrote about the subject (for a Japanese magazine), I called it Antique Software and concentrated not on games, but on OSs, programming languages, utilities and early office-class software that seemed to be garnering hobbiest interest, as well as a smattering of academic interest (such as the software collection at the Computer History Museum in the Silicon Valley). My working assumption was that I was writing about software that was no longer published, but was still of largely historical interest. That definition doesn't assume piracy. For example, an archivist might collect a legal distribution of a copyrighted OS that is no longer for sale.

In other words, I agree with you that abandonware is more than old games--but I think the point would be better made in the "continuing demand for older titles" section of the article--with links to the examples you cite, as appropriate. The last paragraph in that section which I added) addresses the non-game side of the coin. Re: freeware, it already has a Wikipedia entry, so I'm still unclear why the Abandonware article would attempt to define that term here.

Reorg

Well--the Wikipedia guidelines say "be bold"--so I'm floating this trial reorganization and trimming of the article. I've rewritten the lead and cut some of the material that doesn't seem to directly address abandonware, per se, but delves into related topics like software copyright law. A problem with all of this is that while the term clearly addresses a class of software--older titles still of interest (possibly pirated, hopefully not)--formal definitions and discussion outside sources are still hard to find. Over time, more footnoted references would be welcome.--Barte 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Abandonware archive links

CONSENSUS: Linking from this article to abandonware archives is highly controversial. The consensus that has emerged among the abandonware world is that these sites are controversial because they have not only abandonware but warez, which is essentially pirating current software. So links will not be provided in this article. Scott1329m 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

DISCUSSION:

This seems like a legit link: a collection of aging software, appearing not to be pirated, labeled as "Abandonware."Barte 21:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, the fact that no one has taken down this site yet shows the software is worthless :) But, seriously, I agree - Vetusware is an historical researcher's paradise - old DOS abandonware from the 1980s and early 1990s, and some shareware. There's nothing wares-related to it. They may have picked up 1 or 2 packages that might be marginally still supported, but if so it's very rare. Most of their stuff is either operating systems or applications which includes a lot of historical releases that I don't know where else could be found. I actually contributed a lot of stuff to them a few months ago, but they've never put my stuff online. Scott1329m 21:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sites such as Vetusware (and WinWorld) are excellent abandonware sites that are worthy to be linked to; they provide downloadable collections to complement the information available on their websites. Duff 18:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Vetusware is a challenge. Almost by definition, "abandonware" and "warez" are going to be intersecting sets. Any abandonware that hasn't been released into the public domain (no software copyrights that I know of have expired) is warez in the technical sense. The legal issue is like a tree falling in the forest when no one is around to hear it - by definition, the software is abandoned and no one is going to be paying lawyers to write takedown orders and enforcing the copyrights. It's not like vetusware or anywhere is pirating software someone's selling in Best Buy today. (I strongly object to that sort of thing.) I think the site serves a research purpose, which is why it was on the page. Someone who wants to run WP 4.1 (1985) is not going to be doing so because they aren't going to pay for modern versions (!) and want to pirate it the way someone could download a modern version ISO image from a BitTorrent or eMule feed. The only people who want the software would be those who have research or sentimental (or both, for abandonware collectors) reasons. (I personally contacted WP's current owner, Corel, who brushed off my request for historical versions.) If you really want to be pedantic, Borland's Museum said they were going to put up Turbo C 1.0 and 1.5, but never did - is that software PD because they said they were going to make it PD? Or is it not because they never bothered to actually put the zip file on their site? (Those versions were among the ones I uploaded to vetusware that have never actually been put on the site.) However, if every other day someone is going to come along and summarily delete the link w/o discussion, it's better off gone. Vetusware is very findable in google. I do admit that Vetusware is indiscrete, and does have a few packages up there that I would not like to see, such as the current Borland Turbo Assembler and a few other things that are still for sale. Scott1329m 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note however that, as mentioned in the article, some abandonware are re-released as freeware or open-sourced; those are not public domain, yet not warez either (even though they may have copyright or copyleft). Sega381 03:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's very few companies, if any, that'll supply old copies of software to consumers, which is unfortunate. I'll just mention briefly, Microsoft (I'm sure other companies don't either) doesn't care for these type of sites, and if they find them, they'll more than likely receive a typical "Cease and Desist" order. I've seen it happen before. Duff 19:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above and would add that much of this is proportion and intent. To cite a similar, better known example: YouTube vidoes are by and large legal, and when someone posts something otherwise, the site readily removes them on request. We known Vetusware is predominantly abandonware. We can only assume that the site's very existence shows that it hasn't had to defend itself in court, though more info would be useful. So re: the article, perhaps a separate section is called for: something like "Sites hosting abandonware." With a proviso introduction: "The following sites predominantly host downloadable abandonware, although some titles may not qualify as such."Barte 21:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, for me, as ScummVM co-leader, an ever-working sign of a warez site was presence of Sierra's titles (which are being sold by Vivendi as compilations right now) and LucasArts titles, as LEC legal department is ever-chasing entity for their intellectual property. Vetusware contains both -- Sevua 22:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So are there any pure, across-the-board abandonware archives on the Web?-Barte 23:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've created a separate section for the two archived sites and tried my hand at an intro that focuses on what I think is their overall intent, without claiming 100% compliance. Does the inclusion of warez taint the whole site? Are there abandonware sites that aren't tainted? I dunno-Barte 06:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done a lot of historical research into early DOS days, and Vetusware is the only abandonware site with non-game programs I've ever encountered. (You can find some programs on eMule.) I've spent a lot of time looking through it, and most of the site is abandonware. There are probably a handful of what could be classed "wares" - the worst one I've seen is the current Borland Turbo Assembler - but almost all of the site is ancient applications like WordPerfect 4.1 that are unattainable - except buying them from used software dealers, and the ethics are similar to tape trading concert recordings among fans (or Internet sharing, now) versus buying a bootleg from a dealer. In either case, the field is so small that it's not even on the radar. I wish vetusware would stay farther back away from the gray area, so it wouldn't attract the wrong kind of attention, but that's their decision. (As for MS, this is the company which released Word 5.5 for DOS for free during Y2K because it had so little value that the patch was easier just to put up for mass download.) I am not familiar with games, so I don't know what's an abandoned vs. current game. If vetusware is putting up currently sold games, boo hiss to them because it'll get their site taken down. It's helped me research software I thought I'd never get. Scott1329m 11:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

There are actually quite a few sites that offer links to non-game software, however, more often than not, they are broken or at best very unreliable. WinWorld and Vetusware are the only two I've seen that have been able to (for the most part) provide reliable downloads. Duff 21:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the current links, since they all offer current software available for sale, I can give several examples from each web site if required. If you really want older software to become more available, linking to software currently available in re-releases isn't going to help at all. At least try to find links, which only offer software no longer for sale. That shouldn't be difficult, if there really is a concept of only 'abandonware' and not just general piracy of older software. Kirben 05:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as has been argued, the good of vetusware outweighs the bad - there probably are a few things there still for sale, but it's the only place that has true abandonware applications which are not games. It seems silly to have this link added removed added removed ad nauseum - perhaps the best thing to do is have NO LINKS AT ALL and have a paragraph saying

Abandonware web sites are a gray area. Many of these sites have historical archives of abandonware which is not easily obtainable by any other means. But these sites also can contain, inadvertently or intentionally, some software which has not been abandoned and is still being sold. Because of this ambiguity, no links are provided in this article. Many feel the inclusion of non-abandoned software taints the legality and purity of these sites, making them legally and morally questionable. Sites of this nature can be found easily in major Internet search engines. Much abandonware is also circulated on BitTorrent and eMule file sharing networks.

Maybe that's the solution? Scott1329m 13:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, it may be a better solution. Sega381 15:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so now I agree that vetusware is warez. They just put up Power C from MIX, which is still being sold and is still viable. (I'm kinda miffed because they won't post Turbo C 1.0, true abandonware, but they'll post something that's still for sale?) I could understand it if they posted the original K&R flavor MIX C from the early 80s, but not something you can still buy today. Too bad! The site was a good idea. Scott1329m 11:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues with neutral POV

Some editors making recent changes to this and related articles have clearly allowed their personal opinions to cloud their objectivity. I understand wanting to make sure that your perspective is represented in the body of the article, but this has gone beyond merely adding information clarifying the legal status of a category of software or discussing the merits of the various philosophical perspectives on the subject. Those things would be fine, but information detailing the opposing viewpoint is being systematically edited out, to the point that the article is becoming less sensible. The very definition of the term 'abandonware' has been mostly removed from the text! Certainly, the defining ideas behind the argument in favor of the concept of abandonware have been taken out or de-emphasized to an absurd degree. The article is about abandonware, for God's sake! You can't remove the perspective that gives the term its definition. It is necessary for both arguments to be represented here in an accurate and complete way. In your zeal to get you point across, you are doing damage to the information in the article. I would have just reverted the edits altogether, except that there was some useful cleanup and such scattered in with the unhelpful and biased stuff. Seriously, let's get it together. At least try dropping a note in the talk page before making questionable revisions. 70.94.32.98 00:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I blame lack of good sourcing. Start with [1], [2], [3] (Google news archive = orgasmic), work from there. Nifboy 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that people with a clear pro-software piracy agenda do not want the article to follow WP:NPOV policy and complaining about badly needed edits to make this article more unbiased and encyclopedic. The problem is that the "definition" of abandonware itself was highly POV-pushing. Abandonware is just a code word used by people trying to justify violating copyrights and use terms to lessen the fact that they are violating the law. The article was no good because it was very deliberatelymisleading the public. 216.165.158.7 04:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The article as it is now is just a long, rambling explanation of why abandonware is not legal. This does not need to be mentioned over and over. It should be mentioned once or twice.Some guy 09:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

One issue clouding the article seems to be that there are two classes of abandonware, games and everything else. Maybe there needs to be a category Abandonware, with articles for Abandonware Games, Abandonware Applications, Abandonware Developer Tools, Abandonware Legality, etc? The problem with a scheme like this is there's so little interest in abandonware outside of the gamer community. The other big issue is that there is no clear definition of abandonware - warez pirates have taken over the term like used car dealers have taken over "march madness". A real tragedy that they're destroying abandonware. There needs to be some sort of archival exception for obsolete software so it can be preserved and studied. Scott1329m 11:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Scott1329m: there are at least two classes of abandonware and having followed the non-game segment, I think it hard to make the claim, as anonymously made above, that "abandonware" is just a synonym for warez. Check out http://www.outliners.com/ --which is also linked in the article, for just one example.-Barte 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I originally wrote a Wikipedia article entitled "Antique Software" that covered the non-game segment, then later merged it here because this seemed like the more used catagory. I suppose that title could be resurrected, but it does seem like an artificial distinction.-Barte 18:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

DOES NOT COVER POLICY OR IMPLICATIONS FOR USPTO

document makes no effort to reference dmca, congressional, and 1994 obsolescence / unsupported and obsoleted "systems"

moreso, the explicit and intentional implications for invalid patents needs to be presented clearly. IBM/Xerox/MS patent farms have been awarded numbers with absolutely no substinance for decades; the situation is intentionally designed to force challenges to patents which are also unsupported using the obvious invalidity intrinsic in continuously modernizing technology.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.160.119.190 (talk • contribs).

If you would be so kind as to provide a good reference work which discusses these issues, we would be happy to consider their use in this article. If, on the other hand, you're looking for a soapbox to use and rally against the evils of the US Patent office, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Nifboy 07:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Confused by Internet Archive Citation Link

One of the references on this page links to [4] which in turn links to [5]. These exemptions seem to apply beyond just Internet Archive, as the article suggests, and would allow anyone who owned the obsolete software medium to transfer the software to a new medium, ie. run it under emulation. Is this the case? Because this was a 3 year decision set to end in 2006/7, is this ruling still valid?

Dialectric 11:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense

The phrase "People have distributed old software since the dawn of personal computing," implies that there was old software at the dawn of personal computing, which is obviously incorrect. Suggest a rewording. BrknPhoenix 01:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

at the dawn of personal computing, such commonly distributed software as oregon trail, adventure, or hammurabi was indeed old, having been developed in the early 60s

Added the beginnings of a legal section

While some copyrights have been released by the owners, 99.99% have not. Not enough people understand the basis for why, so I've tried to give a quick answer to why nations do not recognize abandonware (WIPO, which aims to bring copyright protection the world over into common ground) and the specific example of why it's currently not accepted by the legal system in the United States. The only serious conflict between WIPO signatories and the United States (on this issue) is the term of the US copyright which is now ridiculously long. However, conflicts over un-released copyright terms in video games won't be an issue for at least another few decades when the copyright terms start to expire in countries with earlier expiration dates (and even then, it will be over the earliest '70s video games, nothing anyone will probably be in a rush to exploit). It would be nice if some users with good knowledge of EU or Japense copyright law could chime in with the rules in their respective jurisdictions. Bobak 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not illegal to use a copyrighted work if the copyright owner does not object. Consent can be given by lack of objection just as easily as by specific contract. HavenBastion 06:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional basis

In the discussion of the constituional basis for copyright in relation to abandonware, a very copyright maximalist stance is taken. The phrase "Because abandonware would conflict with the stated goal of granting "exclusive right" (irrespective of profit), it is not currently recognized in the United States." Is clearly wrong, and warant rephrasing. The goal of this article in the US constitution is to "Promote the progress of science and useful arts", and the "exclusive right" is merely a means. Once software is abandoned (and thus is no longer available to the public), the more rational explanation would be for the exclusive right to be no longer enforceable. I suggest rephrasing the entire section, and removal of the reference to Eldred v. Ashcroft as mostly irrelevant. -- Jeroen Hellingman.

In my experience it's impossible to find people editing on Wikipedia who care about such things as "the point" rather than enforcing the rules that were supposed to produce the point whether they do or not. The fact that a work is copyrighted does NOT provide exclusive rights to that work. There may be "prior use", there may be debatable ownership among different parties any of whom may or may not consent to a given use of it. Copyright provides a legal foundation upon which to claim your right IF it fits the criteria of "the point". In the case of abandonwarez no copyright owners are being harmed, none are objecting, therefore there is No Legal Issue at stake, there is no moral issue at stake. HavenBastion 06:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC) (legal and moral owner of a site which includes abandonwarez: firstpersonshooters.net)

Legal/Illegal

It seems to be taken for granted by most of the people here that abandonwarez is illegal. This is not the case. Not objecting is equal, legally, to allowing. Thus unless a copyrighted work is objected to by the owner, which in many abandonwarez cases isn't even possible since the owner isn't known, however much they MIGHT object, they have not and permission is de facto. Imagine if you will, a legal system in which "might object" was cause enough to do something. It's not materially significantly different than "might have murdered" or "might have libeled". You can't use assumption in a legal question. Without knowing whether the copyright owner does in fact object to the use of the work, the work is by default legal. Copyright was created in order to help spur the creation and use of works by providing appropriate compensation to the creator(s). Since abandonwarez do the first and don't not do the second, they are perfectly legal, as well as moral. HavenBastion 06:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is illegal by default in some countries.

If you say it is legal even then, you are opening the way for stricter copyright laws and longer terms, because you will still have fair use. --AVRS 09:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To take it a step further, have you heard of "common law marriage" or "adverse posession"? Same principle. If a right owner does not protect his right, or if something acts in a certain way for a period of time, it becomes the way it is being used. Legally. HavenBastion 06:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you confusing it with trademarks? --AVRS 09:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Berne Convention, which governs copyright worldwide, is quite clear. Copyright cannot be abandoned or lost through non-defense. RossPatterson 11:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HavenBastion, unless you have a reliable source making this extraordinary claim, then changing the article in the way you propose is inappropriate. It is original research. Nandesuka 13:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Abandoning "Abandonware"?

For those of us who think there's a place in Wikipedia for an article or subsection on the legitimate, academic study of software, I have a modest proposal--let's move that material elsewhere, perhaps to new section of the software article itself. The content could include the large collection of software at the Computer History Museum in the Silicon Valley, as well as some of the non-game links herein. I don't know enough about the abandonware category to understand the debate herein. But I do know that there is academic interest in the history of software, and that preserving and archiving software will be part of that effort. Any thoughts?-Barte 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the term "abandonware" is co-opted so much by games that it's almost useless. I like the analogy of "march madness" which originally referred to basketball but is now what used car dealers put in their ads. Another term in use is "retrocomputing". The word seems to refer to both old software (particularly so old it has to be re-implemented to work on modern machines), and to the ongoing maintenance of old hardware. But it does not have any warez connotations.

I originally had no intention of actually running software. When I was researching what a student's computer in 1987-88 would have (the right versions, etc) I discovered Turbo Pascal 3.02 was freely downloadable, and entered into a fascinating world of historical research where you could actually run the software. That led me to collect more of it to build a complete hard disk image. What I found, and what the world needs a name for, is software which is (a) historically important in its era, (b) of no value currently at all except historically, and (c) under questionable or unknown legal status. Examples: Someone somewhere still owns the rights to WordStar. Borland opened a can of worms: they announced they would released Turbo C 1.0 and 1.5 into the public domain in their museum, but never did. Where does that leave the software? Corel owns WordPerfect and historical MS-DOS versions are not available, but Corel refuses to provide any legal way to get copies. The only way to get copies of this software is quasi-illegal, but the software is so dated that no one could say that owning it is warez or hurting sales of current software. Right now, there is no legal exemption for research, and there's nothing remotely analogous to abandonware (you can't download a Whitworth or Model T). I guess there is so little historical research being done that it isn't an issue - the few people will just download illicit copies and no one will care because the software has no value or whoever technically owns the copyright either is no longer in business or doesn't realize they own MS-DOS software.

I'm afraid you've overlooked some obvious points here. Buying a 2nd hand disk of Wordperfect for DOS from an individual (perhaps on ebay?) would legally entitle one to use the program. Even on an entirely different medium (CD or Flash memory instead of 5.25 floppy disk) Also, I believe there is a exception for US copyright on material used for non-profit educational purposes, but be well prepared to defend this claim if you're sued!!! Cuvtixo (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The other class of abandonware is shareware, freeware, GNU programs, etc from long ago. If the shareware version is not crippled, it's still functional if you can find it. (The biggest problem is that most shareware archives deleted historical versions when new versions came out, so pre-1990 versions of software that was still around in the 1990s are very difficult to find.) Freeware, GNU, etc are still perfectly usable and there are no restrictions (other than not being able to find historical versions). This is "abandonware" in a different sense of the word, software that is simply old. Some has been abandoned, and some is still in use in much later versions. This is what is meant by "retrocomputing" in the main.

Maybe Wikipedia needs to wait for all ths to settle and go for a minimal article describing the bare-bones facts about abandonware as a nebulous term for software. Scott1329m 12:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to forget about pre-PC software. Running Apple II, Commodore64 and such Pre-PC software on emulators has been a legally tacky issue for a while. Before that, software (not usually games) from PDP-11, Vax, and various mini-computers and mainframes on emulators with modern computers has been another another "abandonware" legal-limbo issue. This is long before GNU and even shareware and postcardware. Sometimes manufacturers even included source code with their programs (no one had a home computer and theft was much less of a problem. Software came with contracts for servicing and repairing these dinosaurs. Really the biggest problems are antiquated copywrite laws which make any definitive statements on the legality of distributing software that has no (legitimate?) claims of ownership impossible. Cuvtixo (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about a nuke-and-rewrite, myself. Nifboy 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the term "Retrocomputing" has a Wikipedia article--retrocomputing--in need of expansion. The term seems to work for this class of software better than "abandonware" and has some historical resonance, as well. I'm packing my things and moving over there.-Barte 20:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the term unclear

The current first sentence: Abandonware is computer software which is no longer being sold or supported by its copyright holder. This definition is clear and straightforward. However, some of the rest of the article seems to use the term in a different sense. Examples:

• In Abandonware#History of abandonware:
  • Abandonware was quite low-key until the advent of the Internet: What does it mean for software to be quite low-key? Seems nonsensical. Presumably the author meant that such software was not distributed much, that is, the distribution of abandonware was low-key.
• In Abandonware#United States:
  • the concept of abandonware conflicts with the basic copyright concept: What is the conflict? Pointing out that a copyright holder isn't doing anything with their copyright (which according to the first sentence is all that using the term "abandonware" entails) doesn't conflict with recognizing and honouring that copyright. Presumably the author is speaking here of the notion that if the copyright holder does nothing with their copyright, then it is (legally? morally?) unobjectionable to distribute, modify, etc., the copyrighted work. Is that notion part of the term "abandonware" or not?
  • Because abandonware would conflict with the stated goal [of the copyright clause in the US constitution] of granting "exclusive right" (irrespective of profit), it is not currently recognized in the United States. Again, this sentence only makes sense if the term "abandonware" includes in its meaning the idea that it is okay to distribute, etc., a copyrighted work when the copyright holder isn't doing anything with it.

What's happening in these examples? If they exhibit proper use of the term, we should adjust the definition accordingly. If not, we should rewrite the examples. --Stebulus 20:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The phrase in the first sentence of the definition ...or supported by its copyright holder. should probably be restored along with possible reasons why it is not being supported, i.e. the computer syatem is no longer widely availible, i.e. Commodore 64 or VIC 20, or there are current versions of the software on the market that are availible, or maybe it was something that did not sell well and/or the concept was dropped after its first release.Hx823 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Antique Software

When I started the Antique software entry, I was unaware of this one, which is far more extensive. I'd like to merge that one into this one. -Barte 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all antique software is abandonware, and not all abandonware is antique software. GNU Emacs is antique software that's still in active use. Ami Pro was abandonware even at the time when it was still a viable product. Abandonware does have the connotation of very old programs, but doesn't have to. A new coinage like "abandonware" hasn't had time to settle down into a precise definition yet. Scott1329m 12:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But what about the second sentence in this article: "Sometimes, it is used as a blanket category for any software over a certain age, usually five years." The problem with having a separate article on "antique software" is that the category largely overlaps this one, but the term has not caught on. If you Google "antique software," most of the results are for software for tracking antiques. I speak as someone who once wrote an entire article on "antique software." But were I to do it over again, I'd use the term "abandonware" instead because that seems to be the prevailing term for old software that people collect - the way people collect stamps, coins, and model trains. This usage would seem covered by the "blanket category" phrase above. Barte 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If "Antique Software" refers to collecting antiques, I definitely agree that the page should be merged with this one and that an antique software page be created. I did not know there was such a thing as software about antiques... When some of this software becomes abandonware, things will get interesting. Scott1329m 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"abantiqueware"? Barte 16:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

the distinction will be useful in the future so it should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 18:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a year too late. The merge happened long ago. RossPatterson (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned works

How does this compare to orphaned works? --Gbleem 18:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To judge by this article and Orphaned works: works are said to be "orphaned" only if the rights holder is hard to contact; they are said to be "abandoned" when the rights holder is not exploiting their copyright, whether they are easy to find or not. --Stebulus 18:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a profound core of something here. I gather that most "abandonware" sites are operating on the "Don't Ask the Rights Holder, and maybe the Rights Holder Won't Tell me to shut down." The logic is given as: "The legal fees are not worth the potential benefit to be gained". So what would happen if someone like me were to simply to a coordinated determination program to determine clearly released titles vs clearly unavailable titles? Would I get an avalanche of hate from the A-Ware sites for blackening the grey areas? However, the "Orphaned" section is even more interesting. If *no one even knows* who the rights holder is, I would see that as very close to public domain. "This is copyrighted, your Honor." "By whom?" "Uh... we don't know, but someone has to have it." It makes me want to create a term "LocateWare". Make it available with all revenue escrowed until someone steps forward, at which point you become a form of marketing subcontractor. TaoPhoenix (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Legalities

Having just came across this article again, I was thinking it was overly engrossed in legalities. Reads like OR. Citing the U.S. Constitution is just way over the top. I think the lead already covers just about everything there is to know about the legal status of abandonware ("The term has no legal meaning"), and I'd rather see more about the legal history of abandonware: Have there been any major legal battles over abandonware? Nifboy 07:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I think there's no such thing as "overly engrossed in legalities" --particularly when talking about a topic like "abandonware". There's no original research in that section, rather it's just stuff any American copyright attorney would be able to regurgitate. However, I think it needed revision (which is my fault entirely). The structure uses the traditional legal line of reasoning: issue, rule, analysis, conclusion (but on a very basic version, not pioneering anything unknown or new). Because it's not recognized in the law, there are no notable cases (although it's likely to have been mentioned in an academic paper). The current legal structure doesn't allow for there to really be an argument over whether something is abandonware: either the copyright holder released it in a writing or didn't (that's why it has to be by formal writing: to make very clear that it was intended so there won't need to be a trial trying to figure out intent). Bobak 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we could just link to copyright and copyright infringement and call it done; everything in the US section at least is covered there anyway. That "copyright law more conservative in deciding Eldred v. Ashcroft" is completely irrelevant to the article if abandonware is/was illegal both before and after the decision. Nifboy 07:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I concurr. Although most countries have copyright laws that are generally similar in effect, the underlying reasoning is often different. Canada's laws, for instance, indicate that the 'loss of profit' argument has some merit in deciding whether a use of material violates copyright. It is possible that the use of abandonware without a copyright release, by an individual, would be ruled upon as legal in that [my] country. I think a better approach to the legal/ethical situation would be to clearly state the essential parameters of abandonware (i.e., not distributed, not supported, old, unmarketable... however you think of it) and provide clear links to whatever work is going on over on the copyright pages; perhaps even start a subsection there. Carefully hammering out a discussion of copyright law here seems like duplication of effort; furthermore, the concept of abandonware seems to indicate a certain indifference to the technicalities of copyright in the first place. 69.49.44.11 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "The term has no legal meaning" means nothing and should be removed. Even if this term was defined in the legislature, there should not be any need to qualify wikipedia articles in this manner. With over 4,000,000 Google hits and Google Trends indicating the this phrase is typically used in Europe and Australia. I am suspicious of the motives for denying the existence of the topic abandonware or couching the entire article in a legal shroud that is dominated by the views of just one country. Whilst the application of the death penalty or capital punishment is illegal in my country, I am not about to paint its wikipedia entry with just this brush. --RolandG (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Incoherence

There are strong arguments for at least some of the points on both sides, but sometimes the reasons are rather sophisticated and not well-explained here, for example

Even in cases where the original company no longer exists, the rights usually belong to someone else, though no one may be able to trace actual ownership, including the owners themselves.

If no one can trace (and thus determine or assert) ownership, then does the copyright still exist as a bar to others, does it lapse, does it become public domain, or does it—like land without heirs and unclaimed personal property—revert ultimately to the State?

There are some cases where a case that no one should break a copyright even if it belongs to no one, for example sensitive personal documents (a very muddy parallel might be fallow land that now belongs to no one, but whose original owner wanted to keep in a perpetual state of nature.) But Abandonware doesn't seem to fall into this narrow exception. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Not being able to trace who is the current rights holder is a very real problem in number of cases having nothing to do with software: orphaned works. AnonMoos (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)