logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (09/11/89)
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: > So--would you like it more if Atari did or didn't publish the ROM code? Here is a suggestion -- for any shareware/or other entrepeneur. You want to sell TOS 1.4 disassembled and commented code, but you want to avoid copyright hassels with Atari. The answer is that you don't need to sell the TOS 1.4 listing because every perspective customer already has a computer readable copy available to him (and your niffy little program.) ERGO, all you do is sell a customized disassebler which has tables of mnemonic labels and comments -- what all -- and your customer has to run it on his machine to generate his own listings. People with developer documentation of TOS 1.4 will have a head start on this, but they must be sure they don't use the same "comment" language as Atari used (maybe even different labels.) Good luck. -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (09/11/89)
In article <1640@ns.network.com>, logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: > > You want to sell TOS 1.4 disassembled and commented code, but you want to > avoid copyright hassels with Atari. The answer is that you don't need to > sell the TOS 1.4 listing because every perspective customer already has a > computer readable copy available to him (and your niffy little program.) > > ERGO, all you do is sell a customized disassebler which has tables of > mnemonic labels and comments -- what all -- and your customer has to run > it on his machine to generate his own listings. > > People with developer documentation of TOS 1.4 will have a head start on this, > but they must be sure they don't use the same "comment" language as Atari > used (maybe even different labels.) > I like the idea. I'm sure there's a cottage industry going with some of the major developers: generating TOS 1.4 disassemblies for in-house use. But of course the interpretations by people doing disassembly are not necessarily accurate. If Atari would smile on the project, the errors could be removed. I don't know what developer documentation John Logajan has, but nothing that I've gotten or been promised would be much help with a disassembly. And anything that WOULD help in doing a disassembly would go a long way toward removing the need for one. Atari developer registration is one of the best bargains in computing (compare development kits for Mac, or Windows). Would it help if developers receiving disassemblies had to sign (yet another) release to the effect "I acknowledge that Atari has guaranteed that any program dependent on features not specifically guaranteed WILL be broken by future operating system changes"? Steve J.
logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) (09/12/89)
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes: > logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes: > > You want to sell TOS 1.4 disassembled and commented code, but you want to > > avoid copyright hassels with Atari. The answer is that you don't need to > > sell the TOS 1.4 listing because every perspective customer already has a > > computer readable copy available to him (and your niffy little program.) > > ERGO, all you do is sell a customized disassebler which has tables of > > mnemonic labels and comments -- what all -- and your customer has to run > > it on his machine to generate his own listings. > I don't know what developer documentation John Logajan has, but nothing that > I've gotten or been promised would be much help with a disassembly. This may be true. I though that one of the Atari guys had said that developers get copies of the source code. But now that I think about the whole discussion, maybe that assumption doesn't make a lot of sense. Sorry. By the way, I have a lot of faith (experience, actually) in the level of programming ability by ST ower/developers. I believe that if one of these guys wanted to develop such a product, he could do a credible job. The only problem I see is the fickelness of Atari. After the guy spends months on the project they might just up and decide to release the source code. I think it is unlikely, however, that they will release more than the BIOS part, such as appears in the ST Internals book by Abacus. (old ROM code.) -- - John M. Logajan @ Network Systems; 7600 Boone Ave; Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 - - logajan@ns.network.com / ...rutgers!umn-cs!ns!logajan / john@logajan.mn.org -
rosenkra@hall.cray.com (Bill Rosenkranz) (09/13/89)
In article <1640@ns.network.com> logajan@ns.network.com (John Logajan) writes:
=
=ERGO, all you do is sell a customized disassebler which has tables of
=mnemonic labels and comments -- what all -- and your customer has to run
=it on his machine to generate his own listings.
though john's suggestion is (probably) legal (i think i've seen these sorts
of programs for the PC), the general idea is for atari to freely distribute
the code to either 1) developers for a small fee, 2) all for a small fee.
what is the big problem? everyone with an ST HAS the code on very accessible
ROMs.
-bill
rosenkra@boston.cray.comgl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (09/13/89)
In article <4669@hall.cray.com> rosenkra@hall.UUCP (Bill Rosenkranz) writes: > >though john's suggestion is (probably) legal (i think i've seen these sorts >of programs for the PC), the general idea is for atari to freely distribute >the code to either 1) developers for a small fee, 2) all for a small fee. >what is the big problem? everyone with an ST HAS the code on very accessible >ROMs. Atari distributes source for the BIOS and XBIOS in the dev kit docs. From what they've said, they DON'T OWN the source to the VDI, AES, and GEMDOS. I have gathered this from comments made here and elsewhere. They have been fixing bugs by decompiling pieces of it. [If I'm wrong, someone please correct me...] So, that's the big problem. Perhaps. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) (09/13/89)
In article <1992@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > > Atari distributes source for the BIOS and XBIOS in the dev kit docs. > > From what they've said, they DON'T OWN the source to the VDI, AES, and > GEMDOS. I have gathered this from comments made here and elsewhere. > They have been fixing bugs by decompiling pieces of it. [If I'm wrong, > someone please correct me...] > What we're discussing is related to the difference between past and future. Apparently the earliest developer documentation included source for BIOS and XBIOS (and startup code, and a lot of housekeeping code). Newer developer kits do not. VDI is someone else's property, I think, but I think Atari bought AES outright; GEMDOS has been rewritten, apparently from scratch, apparently more than once. Anyway, what some of us would like is the actual code (with comments) of as much TOS as possible. The sensible ones among us (most, I hope) want it only as programming examples and authoritative documentation. It surprises me that the letters I'm getting in regard to this discussion include a few from people who agree with total non-disclosure, saying that given a chance, programmers will do things that cause version-dependence. Still, given the record of the PC, I think official commented ROM code helps a computer more than it hurts. Steve J.
rosenkra@hall.cray.com (Bill Rosenkranz) (09/14/89)
In article <1992@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
=Atari distributes source for the BIOS and XBIOS in the dev kit docs.
i know, i have it. it is commented but rather poorly organized and virtually
unreadable n-th generation copy. the comments are typical hacker "insider"
comments (like i know everything about the machine already...).
=From what they've said, they DON'T OWN the source to the VDI, AES, and
=GEMDOS. I have gathered this from comments made here and elsewhere.
i know they don't own AES/VDI (this is "GEM" from DRI) but i thought
GEMDOS might be at least part atari. the original dev kit docs contained
dri cp/m-68k docs for most of the gemdos (hence its great similarity to
ms-dos, another successor). it mostly calls bios stuff, doesn't it?
=They have been fixing bugs by decompiling pieces of it. [If I'm wrong,
=someone please correct me...]
this is interesting...atari has to fix s/w the same way we do...hmmmm...:^)
=So, that's the big problem. Perhaps.
perhaps...
but what stops me from pointing my disassembler at the ROM (FC0000 or some
such) and crank away for 192k? i don't get comments and i get lots of
illegal instructions (where imbedded data are), but i get the code. anyone
can do this and many HAVE. the only thing is i and a zillion other people
just had to waste 3 zillion hours better spent on writing applications
to help sell computers to make atari stockholders more money to...
=------
=Greg Lindahl
=gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
-bill
rosenkra@hall.cray.com