I think part of the "problem" with Macintosh Garden is that it's got a very broad definition of abandonware.
Technically speaking, if a certain software isn't sold anymore and its maker is not anymore interested in making money out of it, it may be considered abandonware: however, it's certainly debatable whether this definition should also include pirated software simply because "it's not being sold anymore".
Personally speaking, I have no problem with it: if a software is abandoned and realistically no one is claiming its copyright anymore, I think it's fair to use and redistribute it or at least preserve it for the years to come.
However, this is only my personal position on the matter: others may consider it piracy nonetheless and be against it, and in this case it would be prohibited to publicly link it. I understand this is mostly to avoid any future annoyance from copyright holders who might think, at a certain point, that a product of them is not really abandoned: they could proceed with C&D letters or legal disputes, and that wouldn't be nice.
So to sum up: I'd say if you refer to it in "non-clear terms" (as if, in a secret code), it's ok. People who want to understand the code, will decipher it easily enough. But I'd avoid linking it in public, giving its uncertain legal condition.
Technically speaking, if a certain software isn't sold anymore and its maker is not anymore interested in making money out of it, it may be considered abandonware: however, it's certainly debatable whether this definition should also include pirated software simply because "it's not being sold anymore".
Personally speaking, I have no problem with it: if a software is abandoned and realistically no one is claiming its copyright anymore, I think it's fair to use and redistribute it or at least preserve it for the years to come.
However, this is only my personal position on the matter: others may consider it piracy nonetheless and be against it, and in this case it would be prohibited to publicly link it. I understand this is mostly to avoid any future annoyance from copyright holders who might think, at a certain point, that a product of them is not really abandoned: they could proceed with C&D letters or legal disputes, and that wouldn't be nice.
So to sum up: I'd say if you refer to it in "non-clear terms" (as if, in a secret code), it's ok. People who want to understand the code, will decipher it easily enough. But I'd avoid linking it in public, giving its uncertain legal condition.