lah@raybed2.UUCP (LANCE HOLMES) (10/18/88)
I thought I'd try to be one of the firsts to mention that I found V1.3 AmigaDos at my local dealer. cost ~$27.00 3 disks workbench,kickstart for 1000 , and extras includes documentation of approx 80 - 100 pages half size. I didn't see or ask about rom chips of version 1.3 kickstart because I don't own a Hard disk drive. I'm waiting for the dust to settle on the best configuration before I put out the big bucks. the store where I purchased this update is the Memory Location Wellesley, Ma. They only had 100 copies and expected to sell them all by tommorow 10/18 Lance Holmes
campbell@cbmvax.UUCP (John Campbell SW) (10/18/88)
A clarification of the AmigaDOS Version 1.3 Enhancer Product: 3 diskettes 1 manual (of approximately 150 pgs) US Suggested Retail of $29.95 Previous postings have been imprecise regarding the size of the manual and the suggested retail. John Campbell Commodore International All disclaimers are intact. (Thought for today, what is more important for success: hard work, luck, or intelligence? Answer: it depends upon how you define success.)
rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) (10/19/88)
In article <1229@raybed2.UUCP>, lah@raybed2.UUCP (LANCE HOLMES) writes: > I found V1.3 AmigaDos at my local dealer. > > I didn't see or ask about rom chips of version 1.3 kickstart because > > Lance Holmes If anyone has access to an eprom burner, eproms can be made from the kickstart disk. There is a program floating around that reads the write control store and makes a file that you can send to an eprom programmer. You need access to an amiga 1000 to use this program but I'm sure you could probably also read it from the kickstart disk itself. The 64k eproms are about $10 dollars and you need four of them so this may or may not be more expensive than the roms from commadore. However, you can use the same eproms when kickstart 1.4 is released. Although this sounds like pirating, my justification is that since I believe the kickstart disks are freely distributable, or at least I am allowed to make as many copies for my own personal use as I want, copying it to eprom is really no different than copying it to another disk. Rich Champeaux Clemson University
lbruck@eneevax.UUCP (Lewis S.Bruck) (10/19/88)
In article <3274@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: > >Although this sounds like pirating, my justification is that since I believe >the kickstart disks are freely distributable, or at least I am allowed to make >as many copies for my own personal use as I want, copying it to eprom is >really no different than copying it to another disk. > >Rich Champeaux >Clemson University Kickstart is by no means redistributable. I just picked up my copy and was reading the licensing agreement ( I was bored ) and found out that C-A has a fairly rough set of requirements, namely only one copy of the disk(s). I don't know about the rest of the world, but until I got my hard disk (praise the day...) I had several copies of the Workbecnch commands on different disks for different ``environments'' (programming, word processing, typesetting, etcetera). With all due respect to C-A, it looks like a boilerplate agreement for all of their software, not for OS stuff. There is also a point about software not being allowed to be transferred electronically between computers. Is there then a legal way to boot an Amiga off a network (at such a time when autoboot Ethernet comes out...) BTW C-A, if you wish to press charges against me for too many copies of Workbench, I will be glad to return them to you (I like hard disks...:-) Lewis Bruck Not officially a member of the human race, even.
rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) (10/20/88)
In article <1825@eneevax.UUCP>, lbruck@eneevax.UUCP (Lewis S.Bruck) writes: > In article <3274@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: > > > >Although this sounds like pirating, my justification is that since I believe > >the kickstart disks are freely distributable, or at least I am allowed to make > >as many copies for my own personal use as I want, copying it to eprom is > >really no different than copying it to another disk. > > Kickstart is by no means redistributable. I just picked up my copy and was > reading the licensing agreement ( I was bored ) and found out that C-A has > a fairly rough set of requirements, namely only one copy of the disk(s). I > > Lewis Bruck Is this a change of policy? I never bought 1.2, I copied it from a friend (wish I hadn't, because I didn't get update information). I was under the impression at the time that the enhancer package specifically said that the disks were freely distributable. Of course, I could be grossly wrong :-) Rich Champeaux Clemson University
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (10/20/88)
In article <3294@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: > Is this a change of policy? I never bought 1.2, I copied it from a friend >(wish I hadn't, because I didn't get update information). I was under the >impression at the time that the enhancer package specifically said that the >disks were freely distributable. Of course, I could be grossly wrong :-) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ YOU ARE! The 1.2 Kickstart, Workbench and Extras disk are copyrighted and it is clearly stated in the inside manual cover "Distribution and sale of this product are intended for the use of the original purchaser only. ..Duplicating, copying, selling or otherwise distributing ythis product is a vilation of the law". The same is true for the 1.3 Enhamcer. Next time at least read the docs, dude. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Diga!" -- Leo Schwab [quoting Rick Unland] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
sam@csri.toronto.edu (Sam Weber) (10/20/88)
In article <3294@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: > > Is this a change of policy? I never bought 1.2, I copied it from a friend >(wish I hadn't, because I didn't get update information). I was under the >impression at the time that the enhancer package specifically said that the >disks were freely distributable. Of course, I could be grossly wrong :-) To quote from the Program License Agreement in my 1.2 Enchancer kit: "...You have the non-exclusive right to use the enclosed program only on a single computer. You may physically transfer the program from one computer to another provided that the program is used on only one computer at a time....You may not distribute copies of the program or accompanying documentation to others....You may make one (1) copy of the program solely for back-up purposes. You must reproduce and include the copyright notice on the back-up copy...." In other words: No, this is not a change of policy. -- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Sam M. Weber -- The Guy Without a Cape _|__ ... Recumbent Planes: sam@csri.toronto.edu -|-- ... The Only Way To Cycle. (pronounced "S-am") "Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor
paolucci@snll-arpagw.UUCP (Sam Paolucci) (10/20/88)
In article <1825@eneevax.UUCP> lbruck@eneevax.umd.edu.UUCP (Lewis S.Bruck) writes: ->In article <3274@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: ->> ->>Although this sounds like pirating, my justification is that since I believe ->>the kickstart disks are freely distributable, or at least I am allowed to make ->>as many copies for my own personal use as I want, copying it to eprom is ->>really no different than copying it to another disk. ->> ->>Rich Champeaux ->>Clemson University -> ->Kickstart is by no means redistributable. I just picked up my copy and was ->reading the licensing agreement ( I was bored ) and found out that C-A has ->a fairly rough set of requirements, namely only one copy of the disk(s). I ->don't know about the rest of the world, but until I got my hard disk (praise ->the day...) I had several copies of the Workbecnch commands on different ->disks for different ``environments'' (programming, word processing, typesetting, ->etcetera). With all due respect to C-A, it looks like a boilerplate agreement ->for all of their software, not for OS stuff. -> ->There is also a point about software not being allowed to be transferred ->electronically between computers. Is there then a legal way to boot an ->Amiga off a network (at such a time when autoboot Ethernet comes out...) I hadn't thought of this before, but now that you mention it I have all my Amiga OS stuff on a MicroVAX which I have been using for a very long time as my NFS server for TWO different Amigas. Can somebody at Commodore clarify their licensing agreement? -> ->BTW C-A, if you wish to press charges against me for too many copies of ->Workbench, I will be glad to return them to you (I like hard disks...:-) -> ->Lewis Bruck -- -+= SAM =+- "the best things in life are free" ARPA: paolucci@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (10/20/88)
Just a general comment re: number of backup copies of software that one buys for one's own use: 1. DISCLAIMER ONE: I am NOT a lawyer. But I DO read many legal journals. 2. DISCLAIMER TWO: because of the above (1), treat the following as MY opinion. It was my understanding of the US Copyright Act amendments of 1980 (the 96th Congress) amending the 1976 statutes (in re "The Computer Software Copyright Act") permits one to make four (4) backup copies of purchased software for one's own use. Federal Law supersedes any "shrinkwrap" provisos as well as any (inferior) state statutes. The INTENT is not to operate all the copies on each of one's systems, but to have, say, one or two backup copies on site in case of minor disaster and one or two copies available off site in case of major disaster. MY interpretation concurs. And (as my invoice attests) I purchased three (3) copies of the 1.3 AmigaDOS enhancer, one copy for use on each of my three Amigas (and an appropriate number of backup copies alongside each system). Anyone who says otherwise is uttering bushwa. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) (10/21/88)
In article <12932@oberon.USC.EDU>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > In article <3294@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: > > Is this a change of policy? I never bought 1.2, I copied it from a friend > >(wish I hadn't, because I didn't get update information). I was under the > >impression at the time that the enhancer package specifically said that the > >disks were freely distributable. Of course, I could be grossly wrong :-) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > YOU ARE! > > The 1.2 Kickstart, Workbench and Extras disk are copyrighted and it is clearly > stated in the inside manual cover "Distribution and sale of this product > are intended for the use of the original purchaser only. ..Duplicating, > copying, selling or otherwise distributing ythis product is a vilation of > the law". > > The same is true for the 1.3 Enhamcer. Next time at least read the docs, dude. > > -- Marco Papa 'Doc' I realize that there needs to be some sort of clause to protect Commadore from someone building an amiga clone and bundling AmigaDos with it, but I think that it would be in Commadore's best interests to get the updates to all amiga users (yes I realize that $29 is no great sum). I would be suprised if the cost of the enhancer package reflected much more than the cost of distribution and of writing the manual. It would seem to me that Commadore's motivation for releasing new updates would not be to make a profit from the sales of the software, but to sell more amigas. (particularly when the update is mostly bug fixes like 1.2 was.) Since I have not seen very much of an ad campaign for the amiga and since the only the only stores that I've seen that don't hide their amigas in the back behind their IBM clones are the stores that specialize in Commadore computers, the amiga's biggest form of advertising must surely be word of mouth. The best way to get good word of mouth advertising is to make sure everyone has a current bug free operating system. Anyways, the licensing aggreement that you quoted implies that if I sell my computer, including the operating system with it would be illegal. Rich Champeaux Clemson University
cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (10/22/88)
Summary: References: <1229@raybed2.UUCP> <3274@hubcap.UUCP> <1825@eneevax.UUCP> <12932@oberon.USC.EDU> <3304@hubcap.UUCP> Reply-To: vax135!cjp (Charles Poirier) In article <3304@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP writes: >In article <12932@oberon.USC.EDU>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > I would be suprised if the cost of the enhancer package reflected much >more than the cost of distribution and of writing the manual. It would Perhaps the $29.95 price reflects additional dealer markup compared to the $15 charged for Enhancer 1.2. As I recall, there were a few problems back then with dealers who would not stock Enhancer 1.2 because the markup over dealer cost was too slim. (I expect the nicer manual and packaging also contributed.) -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,mcnc,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
billsey@agora.UUCP (Bill Seymour) (10/23/88)
From article <3274@hubcap.UUCP:, by rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux):
:
: If anyone has access to an eprom burner, eproms can be made from the kickstart
: disk. There is a program floating around that reads the write control store
: and makes a file that you can send to an eprom programmer. You need access to
: an amiga 1000 to use this program but I'm sure you could probably also read
: it from the kickstart disk itself. The 64k eproms are about $10 dollars and
: you need four of them so this may or may not be more expensive than the roms
: from commadore. However, you can use the same eproms when kickstart 1.4
: is released.
:
Of course, this doesn't help the people who have 500s or 2000s. The ROMs
in those machines are real 16 bit wide ROMs, 40 pin packages. Not EPROM
compatible.
: Although this sounds like pirating, my justification is that since I believe
: the kickstart disks are freely distributable, or at least I am allowed to make
: as many copies for my own personal use as I want, copying it to eprom is
: really no different than copying it to another disk.
:
I belive that as long as you've bought the 1.3 enhance pack, you own the
right to use kickstart in your machine. If you prefer to have it in ROM, you can
burn ROMs for your personal use. You may *not* burn a set for your buddy who
hasn't bought the enhancer pack yet though! The Kickstart is copyrighted by
Commodore, not PD or distributable.
: Rich Champeaux
: Clemson University
--
-Bill Seymour ...tektronix!reed!percival!agora!billsey
...tektronix!sequent!blowpig!billsey
Creative Microsystems Northwest Amiga Group At Home Sometimes
(503) 684-9300 (503) 656-7393 BBS (503) 640-0842cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (10/23/88)
In article <8810200656.AA17195@esplanade.csri.toronto.edu> sam@csri.toronto.edu (Sam Weber) writes: }In article <3294@hubcap.UUCP> rchampe@hubcap.UUCP (Richard Champeaux) writes: }> }> Is this a change of policy? I never bought 1.2, I copied it from a friend }>(wish I hadn't, because I didn't get update information). I was under the }>impression at the time that the enhancer package specifically said that the }>disks were freely distributable. Of course, I could be grossly wrong :-) } }To quote from the Program License Agreement in my 1.2 Enchancer kit: } } "...You have the non-exclusive right to use the enclosed program only on }a single computer. You may physically transfer the program from one }computer to another provided that the program is used on only one computer }at a time....You may not distribute copies of the program or accompanying }documentation to others....You may make one (1) copy of the program }solely for back-up purposes. You must reproduce and include the copyright }notice on the back-up copy...." } }In other words: No, this is not a change of policy. You're confusing "policy" with "words" -- I'm _quite_ sure (but I guess I could be mistaken, because I never looked at it ALL that closely at the time) that when 1.2 became available, the 1.2 discs (at least kickstart and workbench -- surely not all the extra stuff) were *freely* available if you had 1.1. I distinctly recall being able to "get" 1.2 at either of three of my local dealers just for the effort of walking in with some blank disks. Is my memory on this one wrong? (turns out I upgraded to a 2000 and so got 1.2 "legitimately", and my memories of almost EVERYTHING to do with my old 1000 are now shouded in fog.) Wait: I remember it now: if you bought some software that would only run with 1.2, they threw in 1.2 for free (or, more precisely, the cost of a disk to hold it on). Since Commodore had no stake in the sale of the software, I assumed that the dealer-sanctioned copying was legit on the face of it. Let my hypothesize a path that makes both versions of history more-or-less fit together -- it is conceivable that with the 1.2 upgrade, that Commodore specifically told their *dealers* that they could redistribute 1.2, but we, as *users* got no such exemption. Could that be it? I seem to recall that most folks agreed that 1.1 really WAS in serious need of replacement, so I think that that was probably a reasonable and necessary policy then (assuming, of course, it actually WAS one...:-). 1.2 isn't so bad at all, and so, while I would like it and I'm already lining up waiting for the next shipment to arrive at my dealers, I wouldn't think it was so all fired important to get 1.3 widely distributed, so Commodore might well NOT provide the exemption/encouragement this time around. __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
sneakers@heimat.UUCP (Dan "Sneakers" Schein) (10/24/88)
In Message <31247@bbn.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > You're confusing "policy" with "words" -- I'm _quite_ sure (but I guess I > could be mistaken, because I never looked at it ALL that closely at the > time) that when 1.2 became available, the 1.2 discs (at least kickstart and > workbench -- surely not all the extra stuff) were *freely* available if you ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Yes they were freely available at any dealer who carried the Enhancer Kit. But they were not available for free. There is a difference. > had 1.1. I distinctly recall being able to "get" 1.2 at either of three of > my local dealers just for the effort of walking in with some blank disks. > Is my memory on this one wrong? ^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ Well since *YOU* were the one who waled into that dealer with the 2 disks, only you know if your memory is wrong or not. But regardless of the fact if this happened or not that still doesn't make it legal! > (turns out I upgraded to a 2000 and so got > 1.2 "legitimately", and my memories of almost EVERYTHING to do with my old > 1000 are now shouded in fog.) Wait: I remember it now: if you bought some > software that would only run with 1.2, they threw in 1.2 for free (or, > more precisely, the cost of a disk to hold it on). Since Commodore had no > stake in the sale of the software, I assumed that the dealer-sanctioned > copying was legit on the face of it. > I can tell you that your assumption was 100% wrong. Not to mention totaly illegal. If you mean that when you bought a program and came with 1.2 installed that it was "threw in 1.2 for free", guess your right. But that didn't include a KickStart :-) > Let my hypothesize a path that makes both versions of history more-or-less > fit together -- it is conceivable that with the 1.2 upgrade, that Commodore > specifically told their *dealers* that they could redistribute 1.2, but we, > as *users* got no such exemption. Could that be it? I seem to recall > that most folks agreed that 1.1 really WAS in serious need of replacement, > so I think that that was probably a reasonable and necessary policy then > (assuming, of course, it actually WAS one...:-). 1.2 isn't so bad at all, > and so, while I would like it and I'm already lining up waiting for the > next shipment to arrive at my dealers, I wouldn't think it was so all fired > important to get 1.3 widely distributed, so Commodore might well NOT > provide the exemption/encouragement this time around. > Commodore holds lisence on their KickStart & Workbench. They also lisence KickStart and Workbench and *ONLY* lisenced partys are authorized to distribute these products. Commodore has never lisenced a upgrade version (1.2 or 1.3) to any outside party until AFTER Commodore has released their own products (Enhancer Kit & KickStart ROM). Please consider this: Commodore puts a considerable amount of work into each new release of the Amiga OS. This work includes many changes that affect programmers and users alike. Commodore then compiles these changes and prints a manual containing these changes. Now to make this new software & manual available to as many Amiga users as possible, Commodore packages the new OS & manual in an Enhancer kit and sells it for not much more than their actual cost. Why does Commodore go through all this trouble of producing a manual and Enhancer packages and selling them for almost cost when they could have just left you copy it from your delaer or friend? To avoid confused users & programmers. If you get 1.3 from an illegal source then you will be one of those many people asking for help with RAD:, FFS, Shell, Ect, Ect, Ect.... But if you bought a legal copy, then you would have a manual to consult for help and advice. Bottom line: Copying 1.2 and/or 1.3 from your dealer/friend is illegal. -- Dan "Sneakers" Schein {alegra|amiga|rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!heimat!sneakers Sneakers Computing 2455 McKinley Ave. Of course heimat is an Amiga. West Lawn, PA 19609 Doesn't everyone run UUCP & UseNet on an Amiga? Call: BERKS AMIGA BBS - 40 Meg - 24 Hrs - 3/12/2400 Baud - 215/678-7691
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (10/24/88)
In article <31247@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: > Wait: I remember it now: if you bought some > software that would only run with 1.2, they threw in 1.2 for free (or, > more precisely, the cost of a disk to hold it on). Since Commodore had no > stake in the sale of the software, I assumed that the dealer-sanctioned > copying was legit on the face of it. Not neccesarily a good assumption. I doubt Commodore would tell any dealer that (for legal reasons). However, I'm also not real suprised that a lot of 1.2's were copied, instead of bought. I didn't notice Commodore getting upset, no suprise since they weren't trying to make money on it (note: these were my observations at the time, before I was a Commodore employee. These are not the opinions of Commodore Business Machines or Commodore/Amiga.) -- You've heard of CATS? Well, I'm a member of DOGS: Developers Of Great Software. Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo 'Bols Ewhac' Schwab) (10/24/88)
In article <8810200656.AA17195@esplanade.csri.toronto.edu> sam@csri.toronto.edu (Sam Weber) writes: >_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ >Sam M. Weber -- The Guy Without a Cape > _|__ ... Recumbent Planes: sam@csri.toronto.edu > -|-- ... The Only Way To Cycle. (pronounced "S-am") >"Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor Now *that's* funny! _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape INET: well!ewhac@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU \_ -_ Recumbent Bikes.... Oh, never mind.