zlacker

>>brayth+(OP)
I'm kind of curious about the license status of this. Zork has been commercially sold (on iOS) within the last 10 years, and I don't quite know how this source would be MIT's to give away, unless there is a deal with whatever legal entity owns Infocom's intellectual property these days.

>>microt+P5
https://archivesspace.mit.edu/repositories/2/resources/1265

"Access to collections in the Department of Distinctive Collections is not authorization to publish. Separate written application for permission to publish must be made to Distinctive Collections. Copyright of some items in this collection may be held by respective creators, not by the creating office."

So, I don't know, does seem a bit on the legal edge?

>>lerie1+x8
I think the publishers have decided that no lawyer/IP owner worth their salt would make a case of this and publishing is a benefit to historical computing.