You're right, Russ, people should do this properly, and donate the source code, as Qualcomm did with Eudora. But I guess there are often reasons not to. For example, one of the most interesting products of the mid 90s was Font Chameleon (forget the manufacturer) which Adobe bought and then used its technology as part of its CFF format. They would not be releasing that tech now I don't think! On the other hand, when Adobe bought Macromedia (reportedly for Flash), I think they basically donated Fontographer to Yuri Yarmola. Most unfortunately, however, the code for the best of all versions of Fontographer, 5 beta, had disappeared and simply could not be recovered. Hard to believe but that is the story. I must be one of the few people to have a working copy of Fontographer 5 - - which of course requires System 8 emulation and a pre-Intel processor. I believe it was never made available for Windows. Just found more info on Font Chameleon thanks to the redoubtable Thomas Phinney for anyone who is interested: https://www.thomasphinney.com/2023/02/why-did-adobe-discontinue-font-chameleon-in-the-90s/ On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 at 21:54, russurquhart1@xxxxxxxxxxx < dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I tend to agree with you, I only mentioned as that was what I recalled. > Thanks for your thoughts. > > As, I think we all acknowledge the Xywrite is abandonware, it would have > been nice if they would have put the source out, in an open source format, > on a repository some place. I know that other abandonware products, I want > to say Adobe Magellan, for example, have place the source where people can > look at it and see it. I'm pretty sure the original bitmap programs for > Apple/MS, have done this as well. > > Just a thought! > > Russ > > On Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 03:08:31 PM CDT, Bill Troop < > dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If there were the slightest possibility of that we would have heard about > it from Anne from NB long ago. It is well known that she monitors this > list. Because we have not, it is clear that they only licensed but did not > own the long ago code. I would guess that they are no longer paying any > sort of license fee, but that is merely a guess. We have been extremely > public about treating xywrite as abandonware for well over a decade now, > and not a single interested party has raised an issue. The statute of > limitations has long, long, long since run out. At this point, there is no > possibility of a legal challenge. > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 at 18:35, russurquhart1@xxxxxxxxxxx < > dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I remember those conversations way back. I had a question, I seem to > recall that the Xywrite engine, at the heart of Xywrite proper, was also > the engine for NB. If that is so, is their any potential liability there of > reverse engineering a component of an existing product? > > Thanks, > > Russ > > On Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 11:43:14 AM CDT, Bill Troop < > dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Harry I agree. Many many years ago, we tried to discern on this list if > xywrite was abandonware, and we determined that it was. Anybody with an > interest in disputing that was contacted and did not respond. Years have > passed. It truly is abandonware. There is not the least legal question of > that. > > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 at 17:40, Harry Binswanger <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > I'm not a lawyer, but 40 years ago I dated one while she was in law > school, so my opinion carries a lot of weight. Xy is abandonware. We > can take "adverse possession" and after a time we will own it. Now, > NB is not in that category. It's code is very much theirs. > > Carl, I believe you have even better legal training than I. > > Regards, > Harry Binswanger > > At 01:20 PM 4/7/2026, you wrote: > >> > >>and will keep pushing ahead. I may extend the work further, but so > >>far I&rsquom honestly disappointed by the limited response and lack > >>of resources, information, etc. I requested. > > > >and not accusatory annoyance. > > > > > >knowledge to pitch it at Xyghost&rsquos level. I can&rsquot begin to > >understand most of what s/he reports. > > > > > >on a non-standard Hyperion computer in 1983(?). If any of us are > >programming these days, it is probably with a relatively high level > program. > > > > > >around. I can only cheer from the sidelines. > > > > > >issue unless the modified code were used for economic benefit. If I > >paid for Xy 4.x, and someone produces an improved version, whoever > >holds the copyright is not being economically impacted by my use of > >the modified version. > > > > > >to market a Xy 5.x, but after all these years this seems unlikely. > > > >Myron (Gochnauer) > > > > >