What would the motivation be for doing this? If for anything other than historical interest, is there anything a 23 year old version of Photoshop has over GIMP?

The license prohibits any sort of redistribution. It's valid for personal use, research, and study only.

As usual, Adobe doesn't "get it".

Doesn't get what? There a billion dollar company. Unlike some other of companies that "got it" (OSS) that have perished.

My implication was that if you're going to share source code, share it in a useful way.

This particular source code is from an extremely old version of Photoshop, there would be no potential commercial harm whatsoever from allowing people to reuse this source code however they want.

I could have lived with the "no commercial use" restriction that's typically used, but to not have a right to redistribute at all severely restricts its utility.

Given that the commercial value of this particular source code drop is effectively zero, I fail to see what Adobe being a billion dollar company has to do with anything. Nor do I see what this has to do with the "OSS" movement of "Free Software" in general, neither of which were mentioned in my original post.

This was provided to a museum for historical purposes. It could also be useful for other research or educational purposes potentially. And one day the copyright will expire.

Except lack of redistribution rights also complicates research and academic study since technically you can't even share any derivative work among colleagues.

Copyrights that may expire long after my death also don't seem like something I should be grateful for.

>This particular source code is from an extremely old version of Photoshop, there would be no potential commercial harm whatsoever from allowing people to reuse this source code however they want.

It's not that easy I guess. Even Photoshop 1 has tons of patents in it's algorithms.

Photoshop 1 is old enough that any such patents should have expired.

If that is true you could reimplement Photoshop 1.0 with the clean room method [1] and have a perfectly legal clone, which you would then be free to expand.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

Does Photoshop 1.0 have significant features that are missing in Gimp?

> I could have lived with the "no commercial use" restriction that's typically used, but to not have a right to redistribute at all severely restricts its utility.

As long the web site stays up, everyone is free to go there and download it for himself/herself.

It means that something like the excellent annotated source reviews by Fabien Sanglard of Quake[1], Quake2[2], Q3[3], etc.. aren't possible.

Nor any ports to attempt ot make it compileable/runnable.

Code isn't supposed to be hung on a wall. If you can't even collaborate to make it work again, it does lose a lot, and waiting ~95 years isn't really a practical alternative.

Will the website stay up that long? Is archive.org allowed to preserve it?

[1] http://fabiensanglard.net/quakeSource/index.php

[2] http://fabiensanglard.net/quake2/index.php

[3] http://fabiensanglard.net/quake3/index.php

You could always make references to the original code.

"There" a billion dollar company alright. "There" are also many companies that embraced OSS and realized it was profitable as well.

Few and far between. Actually only one that makes any big money: IBM, and they sell services on top of OSS as they did on top of proprietary stuff. Nothing very OSS about them.

On the other side, the road is paved with failed OSS companies that were praised as "really getting it", starting with the archetypal one: VA Linux.

(btw, is my typo that amusing to you? Wait till you find out about cat videos then...)

Think the main challenge would be writing a compatibility layer for the Mac OS APIs circa 1990. It might not be so hard to compile the Pascal source.

Edit: Maybe it could be built as a 32 bit Carbon app for OS X with some modifications. That's all a little before my time, so I'm not sure how much was changed by the time OS X came around.

Surely you have no idea what you're talking about. Pascal is modern, perhaps you are the one that's not up to date. Java? Err.. assuming everybody has a lot of RAM, maybe. JavaScript? Forget about it, unless you can find a compiler producing native executables. Go? Has anything useful ever been written in it?

Why would you need to port it to anything? Pascal is still a useful language.

Even if the core logic were left in Pascal, the assembly language would need porting to x86/x86_64 and the GUI code would need to be ported to a modern GUI library.

It would attract a wider range of developers. The idea is to crowd source the task.

Pascal is modern.

At an older company that ran (old) Pascal code in production systems, the race was on to find a supported pascal compiler nowadays.

But that's not possible, so the port to C had been started.

(Oh but Delphi - this systems are not Windows)

What about FreePascal?

I do recognize that Pascal sadly was never strong on UNIX/Mainframe systems, which I imagine is your case.

My move from Turbo Pascal/Delphi to C and C++ happened around the time I needed to target UNIX systems. Given the choice I always take C++ over C, because I can achieve a Pascal like safety.

But I do miss coding Delphi.

If Sun hadn't pushed Java so hard and Borland didn't went schizophrenic with what to do with their products, Delphi would probably still be quite strong nowadays.

Still the best way to code native applications on Windows though.

The key is 'supported'. As in "we are willing to pay money to have someone fix if this breaks"

Not sure they looked into FreePascal (and it is a couple of years already)

About C vs C++, I agree

> The key is 'supported'. As in "we are willing to pay money to have someone fix if this breaks"

Fair enough. Thanks for pointing it out.