[Coladam] ADAM Assembly Programming

Frances and/or Richard Clee cleechez at tamcotec.com
Fri Feb 24 05:26:40 CET 2012


Right, Jim. And how do you feel about the copious amount of material you 
and I and Joe and Ron and Dale (and Alan and Sol and Pat and the rest) 
contributed to our newsletters over the years? Before everything is 
copied holus-bolus and posted on the net, don't we need to be asked too?

- rich

On 2/23/2012 10:58 PM, Jim Notini wrote:
> I'm not 100% positive on this, but I seem to recall Peter and Ben Hinkle
> releasing these volumes into the Public Domain. This, however, does not take
> into the account the handful of ADAM mail-order companies that are left who
> spent monies purchasing stock of these books and other items and what would
> be fair to them. We all know that if these books and other items are made
> freely available on the Web, that everyone would just download them
> insteading of spending the money to purchase them and support the few
> mail-order companies remaining. As we all know, no one is going to get rich
> off of selling this stuff, but a consensus should be reached before
> proceeding down this road.
>
> The other side of the coin is using everything that is available from years
> past as a stimulus to draw in more potential ADAM owners and from there who
> knows what could develop... maybe an SD Drive solution finally.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geoff Oltmans"<oltmansg at bellsouth.net>
> To:<drushel at apk.net>
> Cc:<coladam at adamcon.org>
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: [Coladam] ADAM Assembly Programming
>
>
>> Rich... absolutely it would be vital to get approval from the copyright
>> owners.
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:59 AM, Rich Drushel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>      However, AFAIK both the "Hackers Guide" books are still in copyright,
>>> and it would at least be nice to have the tacit approval of the authors
>>> to
>>> make these works available in PDF format.  Moreover, there are various
>>> errors in the information which I found over the years, which ideally
>>> should
>>> be corrected.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Coladam mailing list
>> Coladam at adamcon.org
>> http://adamcon.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coladam
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Coladam mailing list
> Coladam at adamcon.org
> http://adamcon.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coladam
>


More information about the Coladam mailing list