GXH101@PSUVM.BITNET (Scott Hollingsworth) (04/20/89)
After seeing all the problems people have with replacing bad roms that are copyrighted I wondered if we could legally make a backup of the firmware to guard against firmware loss. After all we own the chip that the firmware is stored on so we can remove it from our machine if we like, so why can't we backup the firmware just like we do with software. I backup any software I buy. It doesn't matter how much the software costs, I just don't feel like going through the hassle of getting a replacement disk. These are just idle thoughts coming from a working mind, they don't mean anything unless they are understood and are acted upon. ------- | ____ | Scott Hollingsworth|(deadhead) (GXH101@PSUVM.BITNET) | // %/\\ | RD 2 Box 378 | fresh if used by: | || %/ || | Ebensburg, PA 15931| May 1, 1989 | \\%___// | | | \^/\^/ | | | :::: | |
matthew@sunpix.UUCP ( Sun NCAA) (04/23/89)
[Thoughts about creating an archival (backup) copy of system firmware deleted]
Considering that Copyright law gives the user the right to generate a copy of
rightfully obtained software for archival use (i.e. backup), and that firmware
is nothing more than software in a non-volatile semi-conductor media, I believe
that it is in the computer equipment owner's right to create archival copies of
system firmware.
This archival firmware would also fall under the same requirements of archival
software on any other media. That upon sale of the computer, the archival
copies must be given to the new owner of the computer or destroyed (either
physical destruction of the carrying media, or total erasure of its contents.
As long as these guidelines are followed, you are protected under copyright law
as well as the owner of the copyright of the firmware you are archiving.
--
Matthew Lee Stier |
Sun Microsystems --- RTP, NC 27709-3447 | "Wisconsin Escapee"
uucp: { sun, mcnc!rti }!sunpix!matthew |
phone: (919) 469-8300 fax: (919) 460-8355 |nubartho@ndsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Bartholomew) (04/25/89)
I am curious as too get involved with this discussion of rom copyrights and
whether an owner can copy the rom code fro archival purposes.
I am really curious as to how one could justify copying the ][+ roms
when they appear to be of a non-standard layout. I remeber attempting
some permanent changes to the rom set (using eroms) and coujld never get
the ][+ to read the code that I had installed on them.
Now either I was doing something wrong (which was unlikely) or the ROMs were
of a propietary nature. I think this is a viable solution to deter people
from making backups.
Any commentson this? I'd especially like to hear from Apple Computer
on whether my expereimentation with EPROMS was right......
--
Bruce Bartholomew 715 South 4th Street Moorhead, MN 56560 218-233-2534
INTERNET: nubartho@plains.nodak.edu *or* nu034421@vm1.nodak.edu
UUCP: uunet!ndsuvax!nubartho BITNET: nu034421@ndsuvm1
"Some days are diamonds, some days are stones" - Charley Johnson
#! rnews c08_d103@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Ex-God) (04/28/89)
Bruce Bartholomew said: > I am really curious as to how one could justify copying the ][+ roms >when they appear to be of a non-standard layout. I remeber attempting >some permanent changes to the rom set (using eroms) and coujld never get >the ][+ to read the code that I had installed on them. > >Now either I was doing something wrong (which was unlikely) or the ROMs were >of a propietary nature. I think this is a viable solution to deter people >from making backups. > >Any commentson this? I'd especially like to hear from Apple Computer >on whether my expereimentation with EPROMS was right...... I don't know about the ][+, but I replaced many ROMs on my ][ with no adverse effects, and I don't remember doing anything weird (but then this was quite a while ago....) I know the Autostart ROMs were modified -- for that matter, I had both Autostart and Monitor ROMs that I could switch between. And as far as I remember, the modified Autostarts were on a standard EPROM. As I said, I don't know about the ][+ (when I sold my ][, I got an Orange + II and stayed with compatibles until I finally bought a //e....) but I doubt they used strange ROMs for the ][+. -- Andrew Barnert (Andy Social/Andy Christ/Andy Matter/ex-God) ins_balb@jhunix/ins_balb@jhuvms/c08_d103@jhunix The opinions expressed in this message are everyone's. Even Elvis's. "If you can't stand the Big Chill, burn down the freezer" -- J. Biafra
matthew@sunpix.UUCP ( Sun NCAA) (05/01/89)
| I am really curious as to how one could justify copying the ][+ roms |when they appear to be of a non-standard layout. I remeber attempting |some permanent changes to the rom set (using eroms) and could never get |the ][+ to read the code that I had installed on them. The Apple ][ and Apple ][plus roms are "not really" that non-standard. Apple simply used a modified version of the 2316 rom. The 2316 rom is the chip that the 2716 Eprom was developed from. The only thing that currently inhibits the direct replacement of the Apple ][ and ][plus roms with 2716 eproms, is the polarity of one control line. The control lines on 2316/2716's are on pins 18, 20, and 21. The polarity and functions of pins 20 and 21 are the same on both the 2316 and the 2716. The polarity of pin 18 is called "active-high" on the 2316, and "active-low" on the 2716. If you look on you schematics for your Apple ][plus, you will see that the the only thing attached to pin 18 of the rom chips is a pull up resistor and the INH/ pin on slots 0 thru 7. Now if we can reverse the polarity on this line you can replace the 2316's with 2716's containing your own code. Reversing the polarity is easy to do. We are simply going to need to add an inverter to the INH/ circuit between the pull-up resistor at RA01 and pin 18 of the the rom sockets. This can be done two ways. The first is to take a currently unused circuit from on of the NAND, NOR, or inverter chips already on the motherboard. The second is to add a new NAND, NOR or inverter chip to the board (there is a kluge space in the front right corner). When I replaced the rom on my Apple ][plus, (my F0 rom failed) I used the first method. I first made the eproms I would need (after the mod, only 2716's will work in the machine (you would need to undo the mod to get the 2316's to work). Secondly I cut the trace between the pull-up resistors and the rom chips. Thirdly I cut the trace between ground and the input to the NAND gate I was going to use as an inverter (A2 - pins 12 & 13). Fourth, I ran a thread of wirewrap wire from the pull-up resistor to both of the input pins of the NAND gate (a NAND or NOR gate will all inputs tied together acts like an inverter). Fifthly I ran a wire from the output of the NAND gate (A2 - p15) to pin 18 of one of the ROM. Lastly I replaced all the ROMs with the Eproms I had made. I reassembled my machine and it worked correctly from the start. I hope filling you in on how I modified my machine will help you out. Lastly, the 2364's, 23128's and 23256's used in the Apple //e's ands Apple //c's are pin compatible with their EPROM counterparts. You will not need to modify those motherboard to do the same thing you tried on your ][plus. -- Matthew Lee Stier | Sun Microsystems --- RTP, NC 27709-3447 | "Wisconsin Escapee" uucp: { sun, mcnc!rti }!sunpix!matthew | phone: (919) 469-8300 fax: (919) 460-8355 |
shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (05/02/89)
nubartho@ndsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Bartholomew) writes: >I am curious as too get involved with this discussion of rom copyrights and >whether an owner can copy the rom code fro archival purposes. ^^^^^^^^ Archival? Heh. Well, since no Apple agreement states that you may copy the ROMS, and copying the ROMS is not pursuant to normal use of the software, yes, it's illegal. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com
paul@athertn.Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) (05/02/89)
In article <2596@ndsuvax.UUCP>, nubartho@ndsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Bartholomew) writes: > I am really curious as to how one could justify copying the ][+ roms > when they appear to be of a non-standard layout. I remeber attempting > some permanent changes to the rom set (using eroms) and coujld never get > the ][+ to read the code that I had installed on them. > > Now either I was doing something wrong (which was unlikely) or the ROMs were > of a propietary nature. I think this is a viable solution to deter people > from making backups. Apple's ROM pinout (for the ][ and ][ Plus) is in fact nonstandard, and EPROMs cannot be plugged straight into the motherboard and be expected to work. I was able to modify the Applesoft ROM code and burn the result into EPROM, and then plug the EPROM into a jig that was in turn plugged into a stock Apple ][ Plus. Before anyone gets on my case about copying copyrighted software, let me say that I made changes to the code for a specific reason (defeating the output formatting while printing listings) for my own personal use. These chips were never used anywhere but inside my machine. The jig consisted of a hacked up "Socket-2-Me" from Skyles Electric Works. This is a PC board that allows two ROMs to be installed in one motherboard socket, and provides a mechanical switch to select one of the ROMs. -- Paul Sander (408) 734-9822 | Do YOU get nervous when a paul@Atherton.COM | sys{op,adm,prg,engr} says {decwrl,sun,hplabs!hpda}!athertn!paul | "oops..." ?
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) (05/03/89)
In article <1049@orbit.UUCP> shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) writes: >nubartho@ndsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Bartholomew) writes: >>I am curious as too get involved with this discussion of rom copyrights and >>whether an owner can copy the rom code fro archival purposes. > ^^^^^^^^ >Archival? Heh. Well, since no Apple agreement states that you may copy the >ROMS, and copying the ROMS is not pursuant to normal use of the software, yes, >it's illegal. > Hardly. The copyright laws clearly state that any software that you have under liscence or ownership may be duplicated for backup purposes. This is irrespective of media, normal use of the software, etc. Read your copyright code (I have). =============================================================================== jawaid bazyar "The history of the world is the history of jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu the warfare between secret societies." Junior/Computer Engineering @ - Ishmael Reed, Mumbo-Jumbo Univ. of Illinois ===============================================================================
STEVENS@SENECA.BITNET (05/03/89)
in an article..... I'm soory i know not which... a reply states that since Apple gives no rights to archival copies than it's not legal. to this I say BULLL capital B. it does not matter whether Apple gives the time of day! it is federal LAW that says a person is allowed ONE archival copy of SOFTWARE! it doesn't matter what package it comes in. whether it be disk, tape, Book, film, hearsay, or uttered breath. (I'm rambling) The point is SOFTWARE! not Container or packaging! if it is software than the buyer can protect himself from a volatile (unvolatile) media! at least that is the intent of the LAW! If I'm wrong, then I'm sure I'll hear about it! but I felt I had to say something! HUMMPPHH! :-) Sorry if i was Obtrusive! but even Murph gets that way sometimes:-) please don't flame me! it's my mothers fault anyway! thanks! (In advance, In retrospect, And otherwise for listening!) Murray Stevens@seneca (p.s. send flames to "the White House" or in Canada to "Maple Leaf Gardens")
MSER001@ECNCDC.BITNET (05/03/89)
>From: STEVENS%SENECA.BITNET@CORNELLC.CIT.CORNELL.EDU >SOFTWARE! not Container or packaging! if it is software than the buyer can >protect himself from a volatile (unvolatile) media! at least that is the intent >of the LAW! If I'm wrong, then I'm sure I'll hear about it! but I felt I had to I think I said it depends on who is watching, as far as making a copy of your roms. Who is going to be watching? Not one person, unless your under invest- igation from the cia. I use to clear out all the garbage in the old II+ roms, with my own stuff. But today, the roms are too big, unless you have mucho bucks to spend on a nice eprom burner. So who wants a back-up of the new roms now anyway? I dont think I am going to spend a grand just so I can make sure I can make a backup of my rom. Of course, I agree that anyone can make a backup of the rom. I guess just put it on disk so you can waste disk space. Talking about roms...an apple dealer just came in and upgraded two of our older IIGS roms for free. That was nice, but he didnt have system 5, so I told him to come back when he had it. Scott hutinger mser001@ecncdc.bitnet (sorry for the ramble)
shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (05/04/89)
STEVENS@SENECA.BITNET writes: >in an article..... I'm soory i know not which... a reply states that since >Apple gives no rights to archival copies than it's not legal. >to this I say BULLL capital B. it does not matter whether Apple gives the time >of day! it is federal LAW that says a person is allowed ONE archival copy >of SOFTWARE! it doesn't matter what package it comes in. whether it be disk, > tape, Book, film, hearsay, or uttered breath. (I'm rambling) The point is >SOFTWARE! not Container or packaging! if it is software than the buyer can >protect himself from a volatile (unvolatile) media! at least that is the intent >of the LAW! If I'm wrong, then I'm sure I'll hear about it! but I felt I had to >say something! HUMMPPHH! :-) Oh my. Quite an outburst... I checked with the copyright office, and they said that the owner of a copyrighted product is allowed, per the Copyright Act, to make a backup copy of the software. Modifications to the copy are considered "derivative works", and are copyright infringements. All copies must be destroyed when the original is transferred to another owner. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (05/06/89)
>I checked with the copyright office, and they said that the owner of a >copyrighted product is allowed, per the Copyright Act, to make a backup copy >of the software. True as far as it goes. HOWEVER, you may be surprised to know that you don't OWN much of your commercial software (I'm not to sure about the ROM code as I haven't checked the fine print in all that paper Apple sends with the computer). Instead, you are legally a 'licensee' AND licensees are NOT allowed the privledge of archiival copies. It has been pointed out (by some pretty good lawyers as well as laymen like you and me) that the fine legal distinction between licensed vs owned software on a disk (that you DO own) is one not likely to be made or readily accepted by the 'uninvolved third person' (in the sense of English common law) and therefore may not be enforceable. It's a legal issue no one seems enthusiastic about putting to a court test (software vendors take the position that you are NOT allowed an archival copy but aren't about to sue you over the issue because they figure the value of winning is less that the cost of losing times the possibility that the courts will rule you have the right of ownership after all -- as in the case of the Sony VCR decision where the courts ruled that keeping an archival copy of a television program is "fair use"). I'm not a lawyer; so I disclaim any responsibility for any inept interpretation, misremembering, or misapplication of laws, precedents, or legal principles (just so I don't get sued for malpractice, malfeasence, or failing to practice enough). Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
STEVENS@SENECA.BITNET (05/06/89)
From: Info-apple@BRL.MIL To: MURRAY STEVENS <STEVENS@SENECA> Subj: RE: re:re:re:rom copyrights Shawn Stanley <xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!nis!sialis!orbit!pnet51!shawn@AMES.ARC.NASA.GOV> WRITES: >>> "well, since no Apple agreement states you can copy roms" etc. etc. "Yes >>> it is Illegal" >>STEVENS@SENECA.BITNET writes: >>But I felt I had to say something! HUMMPPHH! :-) >>Sorry if I was Obtrusive! But even Murph gets that way sometimes :-) >Oh my. Quite an outburst... well I did say I was sorry! :-) >I checked with the copyright office, and they said that the owner of a >copyrighted product is allowed, per the Copyright Act, to make a backup copy >of the software. Modifications to the copy are considered "derivative works", >and are copyright infringements. All copies must be destroyed when the >original is transferred to another owner. Are you saying you were wrong? :-) Ok so we are agreed, then, that you can Backup Your Roms, But don't change them. Actually, I beleive, (though again I could be mistaken) that copying to a Different Media is also Illegal. (at least it is with print and film media) So Backing up your roms to disk would be Illegal! *_Jawaid Bazyar_* You have read the copywrite laws! what say you? Once again, thankyou in advance, in retrospect, and otherwise for Listening! Murray Stevens@Seneca (I can't see why my boss would want ANY of my comments!)
jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) (05/08/89)
>Actually, I beleive, (though again I could be mistaken) that copying to >a Different Media is also Illegal. (at least it is with print and film media) >So Backing up your roms to disk would be Illegal! > >*_Jawaid Bazyar_* You have read the copywrite laws! what say you? > >Once again, thankyou in advance, in retrospect, and otherwise for Listening! >Murray >Stevens@Seneca >(I can't see why my boss would want ANY of my comments!) To beat a dead horse even further... Don't quote me on this, I'm far from a law expert, but it would seem that in film it is illegal PERIOD to copy it (although I believe the courts ruled that home VCR taping is fair use); printed materials may be Xeroxed for research and the ever-popular archiving; true, transcribing printed text to say computer format must be done under the authority of the copyright owner. Assuming it IS illegal to copy from one media to another, does this mean thousands of hard drive owners break the law every day? Again, I tend to disagree. The portion of the Act I quoted stated nothing about media, so I would say it's left open to interpretation until a precedent comes along. Eek! Of course, the above is only my interpretation of what I've read, seen, done, etc. My opinions are exactly that. Oh and I would like to thank Murph Sewall and others for informing me about the status of $$$$ on the net and from whence the $$$$ come. It's a nasty world... =============================================================================== jawaid bazyar "The history of the world is the history of jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu the warfare between secret societies." Junior/Computer Engineering @ - Ishmael Reed, Mumbo-Jumbo Univ. of Illinois ===============================================================================
samt@pro-europa.cts.com (Sam Theis) (05/10/89)
Network Comment: to #2149 by pnet01!crash!cornellc.cit.cornell.edu!STEVENS%SENECA.BITNET The CONTENT is what is copyrighted, not the media. Alteration of an owned copy is allowed. You can make notes in a book, can't you? You just aren't allowed to make changes to a work and distribute the changes, the changed work, or the original work. But, what you do with your own copy is your own business. Sam
stevef@pro-nucleus.UUCP ("Steven J. Freitas") (05/12/89)
Network Comment: to #355 by pnet01!crash!ucbvax.berkeley.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu!jb10320 > Assuming it IS illegal to copy from one media to another, does this mean >thousands of hard drive owners break the law every day? Again, I tend to Technically, in terms of media differences, hard drive owners wouldn't be breaking the law, since both floppy disks and hard disks operate on the same principle: a magnetic disk. This is not to say that they're identical, since hard disk platters are rigid, of higher quality and are more sensitive manetically than their floppy counterparts, but they are still magnetic disks rotating next to a read/write head. Bleah! :) Steve UUCP: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-nucleus!stevef ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-nucleus!stevef@nosc.mil INET: stevef@pro-nucleus.cts.com ProLine: stevef@pro-nucleus ALPE: SteveAdept