tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (06/18/86)
Re: Scenario 1
Would not the fact that the software had been modified by an outsider be an
adequate defense? If Joe Random put down a libelous statement in a copy of
one of say, Larry Niven's books, and gave the book to a friend, Niven could
hardly be held responsible for that statement. To protect itself, all Apple
needs to do here is to say "don't give out modified versions of the software"
or "if you give out a modified version, you must tell the person receiving it
that it has been modified". And probably "you must get the person that you
give it to to agree to this agreement". But not "if you give a copy of the
software to someone, you lose your copy" or "you can't modify the software".
Re: Scenario 2
Did you see me objecting to the provisions that limit use of the software
to Apple computers? There is an intermediate point between making things
so restrictive that they cause problems for Apple owners, and leaving the
software completely unrestricted, and Scenario 2 does not raise any valid
objections to the points that I made. For example, one could change
1. Use the software only on a single Apple computer. You must obtain
a supplementary license from Apple before using the software in
connection with systems and multiple central processing units, computer
networks or emulations on mainframe or minicomputers.
to
1. Use the software only on Apple computers. You must obtain a
supplementary license from Apple before using the software in connection
with non-Apple computers or emulations on mainframe or minicomputers.
which would allow one to use the same System disk on machines at home and at
school without making the System prey for use on an Amiga or an Atari ST.
-- Thomas Newtonjimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (06/19/86)
In article <1014@spice.cs.cmu.edu> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) writes: >Re: Scenario 1 > >Would not the fact that the software had been modified by an outsider be an >adequate defense? If Joe Random put down a libelous statement in a copy of > I doubt it. Unlike the statement in Niven's book, the only visable attributes which define to the user that it is, or is not the true Apple system/finder is the about, and getinfo boxes. There is no way to tell an unmodified version from a modified version. The size and modified dates vary as fonts and DA's are changed. >Re: Scenario 2 > >Did you see me objecting to the provisions that limit use of the software >to Apple computers? There is an intermediate point between making things I think unlimited distribution is legally unlimited distribution. If I give Joe Blow a copy and he is allowed to give Jane Doe a copy the software is no longer distributed by Apple and therefore may be considered in unlimited distribution. I'm not a lawyer, and Apple's lawyers obviously feel that the line between unlimited distribution and public domain is too undefined. It all doesn't matter. Apple owns the software, they have made what they, the owner of the software, consider safe distribution policy. *I* *KNOW* that the system/finder that *I* got from Compuserve is good. If I were to violate my license and give it to someone, there is no way that they could know that to the same degree. If they then gave it to someone what would they know about the pedigree of the software? *NOTHING*!!! I think Apple's policy is a SAFE one, perhaps overly cautious, but in no way deserves to be called Fascist. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (06/19/86)
Actually, I just thought of something that may even have a negative effect on
those who are willing to put up with the restrictions I singled out. One
clause reads "YOU MAY NOT MODIFY ... THE SOFTWARE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART ..."
Now what constitutes modifying the software? What about:
(1) Installing or removing fonts
I don't think of this as modifying the software, but some lawyer
might, since it certainly changes its behavior (the bits you see
on the screen will reflect whether a requested font and size are
present in the System file or not, etc.)
(2) Installing or removing desk accessories such as MockWrite which
can be characterized as "taking snapshots and leaving footprints"
(3) Installing or removing desk accessories such as SkipFinder, Control
Panel, or the Dvorak keyboard layout DA which are meant to have some
direct effect on the way in which the system operates.
(4) Installing INITS, FKEYS, drivers for SCSI devices (like hard disks),
etc. which may have effects as in (2) or as in (3).
Assuming that any one of these things count as "modifying the software" (and
I haven't yet heard of a Mac owner who doesn't customize their System file),
this makes the electronically-distributed System useless even on a single Mac.
Does anyone still believe this is a perfectly reasonable license? Any bets as
to what happens when a court finds out just what the chances are that anybody
can obey all the points of the license without using the System disk only as a
paperweight? Ephraim's point is well-taken.
-- Thomas Newtonchuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (06/19/86)
> I think Apple's policy is a SAFE one, perhaps overly cautious, but in no > way deserves to be called Fascist. I want to expand on this a bit, and then maybe we can be done with the this puppy. 1) All of this hassle has been because Apple didn't do things the way YOU want them done. Nobody seems to have stopped and considered whether what YOU wanted was also in the interests of Apple. There are two interested parties here: the manufacturer and the user. Somewhere between them is a useful compromise between protecting the ownership of the software and making it easily available. I think Apple has taken a strong first step towards making the software available while not losing control of it. When was the last time IBM posted an update to PC-DOS to a BBS? I won't claim that the agreement is perfect from the users point of view, but look at the alternatives. Apple is (again) breaking new ground, so it isn't surprising they tread carefully. Depending on how this experiment works, I'd expect the licensing to be liberalized as Apple grows more confident. Unless, of course, people botch up the deal and Apple has to cancel it. 2) If you don't like it, write to Apple. We can ALWAYS go back to the old way of doing things -- Apple mails it to the dealer (eventually) and you find a deal willing to admit to having a copy (eventually). -- :From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid: Chuq Von Rospach chuq%plaid@sun.COM FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq Dessert is probably the most important stage of the meal, since it will be the last thing your guests remember before they pass out all over the table. -- The Anarchist Cookbook
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (06/20/86)
> 1) All of this hassle has been because Apple didn't do things the way YOU > want them done. Nobody seems to have stopped and considered whether what > YOU wanted was also in the interests of Apple. Why should we be giving special treatment to Apple's interests? They don't seem to have given much thought to our interests in this matter. To be quite honest with you, I'd be just as happy with *no restrictions at all* as with restrictions designed to keep the software on Apple-manufactured machines, but I don't have any problems living with the latter. The restrictions that cause problems for Mac owners are another thing entirely... > I won't claim that the agreement is perfect from the users point of view, Certainly the understatement of the year, as it appears that even installing fonts and DAs into an electronically-distributed System may be prohibited. > but look at the alternatives Yes, look at the alternatives. They could have written it so that it only restricted use of the software to Apple computers, and only posed the burden upon users of giving out copies of the license with copies of the System (so Commodore or Atari couldn't bypass it by obtaining a second-hand copy). But they didn't; instead they let their lawyers run wild. -- Thomas Newton
tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) (06/20/86)
> The size and modified dates vary as fonts and DA's are changed. You mean that you've changed the desk accessories in your downloaded copy of the System? Don't you know that that's a no-no, and that now that you have violated the license, you must destroy all your copies of the software? > If I give Joe Blow a copy and he is allowed to give Jane Doe a copy the > software is no longer distributed by Apple and therefore may be considered > in unlimited distribution. But you *are* allowed to give Joe Blow a copy, and Jow Blow *is* allowed to give Jane Doe a copy under the current arrangement. You and Joe Blow have to destroy your copies, but note that it *is* possible to get a legal copy by some means other than directly downloading the "known true" Apple software. So is not the current policy subject to the same sort of attack? > It all doesn't matter. Apple owns the software, they have made what they, > the owner of the software, consider safe distribution policy. Yes, they own the software, and so they probably have the legal right to jerk us all around. Very few computer systems are sold so that the hardware or OS vendor doesn't have the legal right to jerk the users around. But anyone who exercises such a legal right violates a trust implicit in the original sale-- do you know anyone who would buy a computer if they were told that they would be jerked around on future OS releases? > *I* *KNOW* that the system/finder that *I* got from Compuserve is good. If > I were to violate my license and give it to someone, You could give it to them without violation by destroying all your copies (assuming that you haven't violated it already by using the Font/DA Mover to do anything more than look at sizes of fonts and DAs in the System). > there is no way they could know that to the same degree. If they then gave > it to someone what would they know about the pedigree of the software? > *NOTHING*!!! True, quite true, but note that there is nothing that will really prevent that in the current "agreement". Yes, there is a prohibition against modifying the software, but how do you really **know** that the person who transferred their only copy to you didn't secretly violate the license by modifying the System? > I think Apple's policy is a SAFE one, perhaps overly cautious, but in no > way deserves to be called Fascist. I hope you like the set of fonts and DAs that came installed, and never feel the need to use another font or desk accessory, or to install a driver for a hard disk (or other SCSI device), or to use more than one Mac regularly. . . -- Thomas Newton
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (06/21/86)
I don't like license agreements that won't let me debug my programs! The following seems to be in violation of the new license agreement: 1. Install TMON 2. Press interrupt button 3. Bring up dissassembly window 4. Type (pc) to anchor the window to the pc 5. Exit from TMON This is a normal part of debugging. It is also illegal, according to the license agreement. If Apple has a good reason for not wanting me to debug my programs, I would like to hear it! I won't even mention using MacNosy to try to find out stuff that IM and the Tech Notes are unclear on... -- Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim "hey, bay-BEE'...hey, bay-BEE'" Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi || GEnie: mnementh
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (06/22/86)
In article <1018@spice.cs.cmu.edu> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) writes: >Yes, look at the alternatives. They could have written it so that it only >restricted use of the software to Apple computers, and only posed the burden >upon users of giving out copies of the license with copies of the System (so >Commodore or Atari couldn't bypass it by obtaining a second-hand copy). But >they didn't; instead they let their lawyers run wild. > > -- Thomas Newton Yes, that is one of the alternatives, here are all of them: 1. No restriction. Unlikely. 2. Restrict to Apple machines, any distribution, Unsafe from Apple's point of view. *I* wouldn't use a system I got from any Joe Blow on the street, or any BBS I happened to find. I will use one off of Compuserve or GENIE, or eventually, off USENET (when a particular site agree's to the provisions of a distributer license, not if someone was so crass as to post it without such a license). 3. Restricted to Apple machines, restricted to Apple licensed distribution. Ideal. I know this is not what the current license says, read further. 4. Restricted to Apple machines, restricted to Apple licensed distribution, restricted to 'use only' no disassembly, no modification, etc... This is what they did. 5. Available only when bozo dealers find out they have it. This is also available. 6. Available for a nominal 'cost' charge with documentation, when dealer stock is available. I understand this is also in the works. 7. Available as a 'purchase' at about $70, ala' IBM DOS. No Thank You. Apple did not do the 'ideal', number 3. That's too bad, they also didn't do number 7, and have you ever read the license agreement that comes with it? Apple also offers number 5, and I understand number 6 is in the works. This is a far cry from Fascist! The software BELONGS to Apple! They can license it as they chose. Unlike a previous poster who said unenforced provisions invalidate the license, the law actually invalidates only the invalid portions. Therefore I suggest you think of the terms realistically: Disassembly: Prevailing law modifies all contracts, but does not have to be quoted in each of them. If you disassemble to debug, that falls under the 'fair use' provisions of the law. If you disassemble, use the results in a competitive product, look out. Modification: If you add or remove fonts, DA's, INIT's, FKEY's, bug patches, that's again 'fair use'. But don't give it to someone else, tell them the patches if you want, but let them install them themselves. Distribution: That's pretty clear, like it or not. It is enforceable, if they find you. Don't confuse unenforceable because they can't find you, with unenforceable. If they catch some clod distributing the software to friends with no commercial gain, or some BBS with the software on it and tell them to stop, that's enforcement. They don't have to sue for a million bucks. If they don't catch them, they merely don't catch them. They don't want you to distribute the software! They want their users to know the software is genuine unadulterated product of Apple. You may trust your friend who says 'I got it straight from Compuserve', or 'My friend Joe got it straight from Compuserve' but Apple doesn't. And they don't have to. At least, unlike some other OS houses, they didn't tell you that you could only have 'n' copies of the software for use on the one computer. I'm tired of this discussion. In case you never looked, on the back of the front cover of the Macintosh manual you got with your Mac is a Copyright statement including the statement 'This exception [ the exception allowing copies for fair use ] does not allow copies to be made for others, whether or not sold....'. 'Nuff said. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 It may be stupid, it may be safe, but it's not Fascist!
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (06/22/86)
In article <1019@spice.cs.cmu.edu> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) writes: >True, quite true, but note that there is nothing that will really prevent that >in the current "agreement". Check the back of the front page of your Macintosh manual, the one that just says Macintosh on the spine. There is a license there prohibiting giving copies to anyone. > >I hope you like the set of fonts and DAs that came installed, and never feel >the need to use another font or desk accessory, or to install a driver for a >hard disk (or other SCSI device), or to use more than one Mac regularly. . . > > -- Thomas Newton A license is subject to the 'fair use' law without having to quote it within it. This license said, right at the end that provisions were enforceable to the extent provided by law. As for using more than one computer, nobody has figured that out. In this case both machines are licensed for the Macintosh system. Who's to say you didn't download it twice? I did (for reasons having nothing to do with this discussion, I only have, and use, one Mac). > >> I think Apple's policy is a SAFE one, perhaps overly cautious, but in no >> way deserves to be called Fascist. I still say this. You should go look up Fascist in an encyclopedia. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 It may be stupid, it may be safe, but it's not Fascist!
dwb@well.UUCP (David W. Berry) (06/24/86)
In article <12082@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >I still say this. You should go look up Fascist in an encyclopedia. OK. Well, actually it's a dictionary, Mirriam-Webster to be precise: fascism \......\ n 1: often cap: the body of principles held by Fascisti. 2: a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. - fascist adj. often cap. Not actually knowing what body of principles Fascisti held I will have to assume that point to sums them up in a nut shell. Hmm, well software distribution could be a movement. "exalts nation and race" That might refer to you can't get the stuff from anybody else "centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader" and that's the way its going to be until we decide differently. "severe economic and forcible suppression of opposition" and we'll sue your pants off if you don't agree to it.o Well, if you actually stretch it just a little, it is a Fascist Doctrine. Maybe if we try real hard we can get Apple on 60 Minutes, just like Proctor and Gamble was. David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb.Delphi dwb.GEnie 293-0544.408.MaBell DOWN WITH FASCIST APPLE! (By the way, jimb was arguing the policy isn't Fascist lest anyone think I'm attempting to misquote him by quoting out of context) -- David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb.Delphi dwb.GEnie 293-0544.408.MaBell DOWN WITH FASCIST APPLE!
tim@ism780c.UUCP (06/24/86)
In article <1019@spice.cs.cmu.edu> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) writes: > > Don't you know that that's a no-no, and that now that you have > violated the license, you must destroy all your copies of the software? ^^^^ Read that license again. It says "destroy all copies", not "destroy all your copies"... :-) -- Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim || ima!ism780!tim "hey, bay-BEE'...hey, bay-BEE'" Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi || GEnie: mnementh
dlt@csun.UUCP (Dave Thompson) (06/25/86)
Do you suppose, (just SUPPOSE) that Apple might have made some arrangement
with CompuServe that by requiring EACH PERSON by the terms of the license
to download their own, individual copies of SYSTEM (etc.) CompuServe gains
the most in terms of revenue charges for connect time required to do the
download????
--
--------------------
Dave Thompson uucp: {ihnp4 | hplabs | psivax}!csun!dlt
CSUN Computer Center
Northridge, CA 91330jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (06/25/86)
blah blah blah ... In article <1019@spice.cs.cmu.edu> tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton) writes: >> It all doesn't matter. Apple owns the software, they have made what they, >> the owner of the software, consider safe distribution policy. > >Yes, they own the software, and so they probably have the legal right to jerk >us all around. ... Nonsense! Who's getting jerked around? You download it, you modify it any way you want and how are you getting jerked around? You think Apple cares? Of course not! If you start selling or distributing it widely, sure they do. Especially if someone tries to sue Apple for damages for distributing bad software. The licensing agreement might give them leverage in court. M i g h t because anything can happen in court -- just as any contract can be broken. And in this case, you didn't even sign one! My point is, as a practical matter, as a mortal u s e r, you can pretty much ignore the censored licensing agreement. You know what you're not supposed to do (sell it or give it away) and except for those few friends and colleagues who have Macs, you don't. Are they gonna rat on you to Apple? Is Apple gonna find out otherwise? Of course not! If, however, you're interested in arguing the philosophical high points of law and disobedience, blabber away. Flip side, joe piazza --- Cogito cogito ergo equus sum. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 (716) 636-3191, 3180 UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!jmpiazza CS: jmpiazza@buffalo-cs BI: jmpiazza@sunybcs
jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) (06/27/86)
In article <1326@well.UUCP> dwb@well.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes: >In article <12082@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >>I still say this. You should go look up Fascist in an encyclopedia. > OK. Well, actually it's a dictionary, Mirriam-Webster to be >precise: > > fascism \......\ n 1: often cap: the body of principles held by > Fascisti. 2: a political philosophy, movement or regime > that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized > autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, > severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible > suppression of opposition. - fascist adj. often cap. > > Not actually knowing what body of principles Fascisti held >I will have to assume that point to sums them up in a nut shell. Hmm, >well software distribution could be a movement. > "exalts nation and race" >That might refer to you can't get the stuff from anybody else > "centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader" >and that's the way its going to be until we decide differently. > "severe economic and forcible suppression of opposition" >and we'll sue your pants off if you don't agree to it. > > Well, if you actually stretch it just a little, it is a >Fascist Doctrine. That's a LOT of stretching. You're always forgetting they OWN the software. There is a long way between distributing something free, and severe economic anything. Any owner of a Macintosh can, without charge, get a copy of the Apple software, by visiting his dealer (a distribution delay may be present). Any owner of a Macintosh can for a relatively small cost join Compuserve or Delphi and download the software. All OTHER avenues of obtaining the software are forbidden. TRUE. You have two choices: 1. Agree not to pass out copies of the software. 2. Don't get the software. All other choices are illegal. Whether you like the law or not. But take your poor attempt to equate it with Fascism into any professor of law, logic, political science, or philosophy, and it will cause a lot of laughter. -- Jim Budler Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (408) 749-5806 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb Compuserve: 72415,1200 It may be stupid, it may be safe, but it's not Fascist! Stretch it a little, stretch it a lot, get your little rubber definitions here!
dwb@well.UUCP (06/28/86)
In article <12148@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <1326@well.UUCP> dwb@well.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes: >>In article <12082@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes: >All other choices are illegal. Whether you like the law or not. But >take your poor attempt to equate it with Fascism into any professor of >law, logic, political science, or philosophy, and it will cause a lot of >laughter. True. That's why I didn't bother putting a smiley on it. I thought it was realtively obvious I was being facetious. -- David W. Berry dwb@well.uucp dwb.Delphi dwb.GEnie 293-0544.408.MaBell DOWN WITH FASCIST APPLE!
sl@van-bc.UUCP (06/30/86)
I don't know what happens elsewhere but I would doubt that more than ONE copy of the new System/Finder/License/Misc was downloaded in the Vancouver area. This is not to say that it is not available from at all of the good dealers (and they didn't get it from Apple), most of the software developers and anyone who knows anyone. I would not be suprised if the local Apple folks got it from the same person. (Their official copy will undoubtedly arrive within a month or so, Canada is at the very end of the distribution list it seems.) It would seem that Apple is trying to protect themselves with this agreement. However in the real world -:) no one seems to pay much attention to it. As far as costs go, time to get into CServe and download the 600k is probably the major reason most people would rather just make a copy of the disk (contrast 2 minutes with 2 hours plus). They just can't be bothered. Of course $25 is no laughing matter either. I suppose people would feel more guilty about it if Apple was actually getting part of it. (In point of fact CServe is setup to pay Sysops a percentage for traffic on various areas like Maug. Perhaps some of this is being channeled back to Apple. I would doubt it though.) The whole point of the exercise is Apple is quite unlikely to come barging into anyones office demanding to see proof of downloading / copying from an authorized source. (What would such proof consist of? A huge bill from CServe on my MasterCard?) And given the impossibility of proving the source of the material, human nature being what it is, most people are going to do exactly what they have been doing since day one with Mac software. Getting a copy from WHEREVER they can. Let's face it, if you've been waiting for months to get it you'll do whatever is necessary to get it. Usually that means a quick trip with a case of beer to who ever you know that has a CServe account. It will be interesting to see if Apple pay's any attention to this ongoing dialog. Possible reactions could include: - no more distribution via BBS - a more intelligent agreement which reflects reality I'm also waiting for someone to post a message to say that they did download it N times, once for each of their N machines ( or N friends).
benn@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (T Cox) (07/06/86)
With regard to Apple distributing new System and Finder via CompuServe, sl@unix.UUCP (Stuart Lynne @ SLI) writes: >(In point of fact CServe is setup to pay Sysops a percentage for >traffic on various areas like Maug. Perhaps some of this is being channeled >back to Apple. I would doubt it though.) CServe pays between 5 and 22 percent comission on the revenue generated by a database or forum [according to popular press -- I've not spoken with CServe officials on this]. MAUG's a high-volume area, so it's probably a low percentage [or ought it to be a high percentage for high volume?] I am under the impression that MAUG is run by an independent users' outfit so I *sincerely* doubt that Apple gets any kickbacks. I imagine that Apple authorized MAUG as a distributor of upgrades simply because (1) they could still legally claim to be maintaining copyright and control of copying [if you fail to attempt this, you may lose your copyright in court!] and because (2) it's faster and more convenient for many [not all] Apple customers. Without MAUG, that one copy downloaded in Vancouver wouldn't exist, and you'd all still be waiting. Apple can't condone it without jeapordizing their copyright [I hope I have that right or I'm gonna look even dumber than usual] but you *will* note that they're making it pretty easy for all of us to obtain the upgrades quickly from friends. >It will be interesting to see if Apple pay's any attention to this ongoing >dialog. Possible reactions could include: > > - no more distribution via BBS Find me a faster way and I'll agree. > - a more intelligent agreement which reflects reality The reality of common copying practices, or the reality of copyright laws? I hope that someone out there who *really* knows about this [the legal requirement that one protect one's copyright or lose it] will post something. I, however, refuse to crosspost to net.vile-creatures. I mean, uh, net.legal. "God I hate lawyers. Don't quote me on that; I may need one." -= Thomas Cox =- CompuServe: 76317,3121 GEnie: CLIPJOINT UUCP: c/o ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!see1
jack@glasgow.glasgow.UUCP (Jack Campin) (07/09/86)
I missed the start of this, but if it's true that Apple intends to rely on Compuserve for software distribution, that is HORRIFIC news for us in Europe. We can't get at it (hardly any Mac users here have any sort of modem, let alone one that uses Bell standards). Apple is months behind schedule supplying our local dealer with software upgrades, at any price. The Compuserve link suggests that they intend to get worse. jack