It's an old Borland Turbo C manual I scanned in. I think it's far enough removed from current standards I shouldn't run into copyright violation trouble, but it will give you an idea of how tricky it is for blind people to access accurate info on whatever topic they might be interested in.
Warning, it's about 1.3 megs, so it might be a bit troublesome for slower connections.
> It's an old Borland Turbo C manual I scanned in. I think it's far enough > removed from current standards I shouldn't run into copyright violation > trouble, but it will give you an idea of how tricky it is for blind people > to access accurate info on whatever topic they might be interested in.
> Warning, it's about 1.3 megs, so it might be a bit troublesome for slower > connections.
> It's an old Borland Turbo C manual I scanned in. I think it's far enough > removed from current standards I shouldn't run into copyright violation > trouble
On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:42:12 +0100, bugbear wrote: > Dudley Hanks wrote: >> If you've got a couple of extra minutes and are interested in how us >> blind guys read books, check out:
>> It's an old Borland Turbo C manual I scanned in. I think it's far >> enough removed from current standards I shouldn't run into copyright >> violation trouble
> New to copyright law, are we?
In this sort of case it's not about the letter of the law so much as whether anyone would bother to pursue it - there's loads of obsolete technical documentation on-line and I'm not aware of anyone being hassled for putting it there.
Rob Morley wrote: > On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:42:12 +0100, bugbear wrote:
>> Dudley Hanks wrote: >>> If you've got a couple of extra minutes and are interested in how us >>> blind guys read books, check out:
>>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Light-And-Sight/TurboC- > manual.txt >>> It's an old Borland Turbo C manual I scanned in. I think it's far >>> enough removed from current standards I shouldn't run into copyright >>> violation trouble >> New to copyright law, are we?
> In this sort of case it's not about the letter of the law so much as > whether anyone would bother to pursue it - there's loads of obsolete > technical documentation on-line and I'm not aware of anyone being hassled > for putting it there.
Yes, agreed. This crime would probably be easy to get away with :-)
>> It's an old Borland Turbo C manual I scanned in. I think it's far enough >> removed from current standards I shouldn't run into copyright violation >> trouble
> New to copyright law, are we? > Very new.
My thought is that the informative value of illustrating the technical difficulties the blind community faces in accessing accurate information outweighs the proprietary concerns a large company might have in protecting its out-of-date technical writings. However, if I am wrong and, if someone complains to Borland, and if Borland asks me to take the file down, I will do so quickly. Of course, the file will be off the net long before any complaint will have wound its way through the bureaucratic jungle.
