cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) (05/18/89)
Recently, I posed the following question in the Atari ST roundtable on GEnie (actually, I did not phrase it exactly like this, but this is the gist of what I said): Would I have any legal problems with Atari if I disassembled the ROM code, altered it to suit my individual needs, and then burned a new set of ROMs for my machine? I also stated that the ROMS would be used only in my machine and that (1) I would not release the original code to anyone and (2) I wouldn't release the bastardized code to anyone either. All of this is for my own little 1040ST. Well, a Mr. Townsend replied that he thought the process was illegal, but he didn't give a reason. I can't understand why. If that is illegal then wouldn't it be illegal to modify the carburator in my new Ford, etc...? Oh yeah, this guy was from Atari. A few other users saw things my way. I personally thought that after the purchase of my computer it was my right to change/alter/modify any part of the computer that I saw fit. What do you think about this? Myself and a couple of friends are (1) really impatient for the ROM upgrade (which Tramiel just said wouldn't be available anyway for the 1040) and (2) very curious to see if we can "improve" and debug this version of TOS enough to suit our needs. BTW, both of my friends are PhD candidates in Comp Sci and one of them is involved in heavy OS research. Hehe, I'm just gonna watch and maybe learn a bit in the process. We have tons of equipment to burn the ROMs and a very cheap source of EPROMs. What do the rest of you netters think? Curious as hell, Chris Mauritz cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu No points for 2nd BEST!
jlemon@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Jonathan Lemon) (05/18/89)
In article <8905171833.AA01200@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu> cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: >Would I have any legal problems with Atari if I disassembled the ROM >code, altered it to suit my individual needs, and then burned a new set >of ROMs for my machine? I also stated that the ROMS would be used only >in my machine and that (1) I would not release the original code to >anyone and (2) I wouldn't release the bastardized code to anyone .... >What do the rest of you netters think? I think that as soon as I get some spare time on my hands (read that: finish my finals, which I am supposed to be studying for) then I'm going to make my _own_ version of the ROMs, starting with replacing the damned character set with something more aesthetically pleasing. I'm getting tired of booting and re-running bw_font everytime it gets wiped out of memory. (And I've got a Mega2) As for Atari: 1. I bought it, I paid for it, it's mine now. 2. I'm not making any money off of it, nor depriving Atari of sales 3. Who's going to tell them? (Hi there, Allan!) Besides, isn't there a completely disassembled, commented listing of the Atari ROMs published somewhere in Germany? I pulled the following off the net last summer: Discompilation of GEMDOS "Das TOS-listing BIOS/GEMDOS/VDI" by Kramer, Riebl, Huebner Although I never followed it up 'cause I suspect it is in German, which I will learn _AFTER_ I fix up those ROMs. :-) -- Jonathan ...ucbvax!cory!jlemon or jlemon@cory.Berkeley.EDU
rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (Bob Rogers) (05/18/89)
In article <8905171833.AA01200@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu> cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: >................................ impatient for the ROM upgrade (which >Tramiel just said wouldn't be available anyway for the 1040)........ Is this true? I thought it was "only" the Blitter that wouldn't be available for the older 1040s (despite Atari's statements that we would be able to upgrade to the Blitter). -- Bob Rogers rogers@stpaul.ncr.com or rogers@pnet51.cts.com NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN GEnie: R.C.ROGERS
ignac@electro.UUCP (Ignac Kolenko) (05/19/89)
In article <13911@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jlemon@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Jonathan Lemon) writes: >Besides, isn't there a completely disassembled, commented listing of the >Atari ROMs published somewhere in Germany? I pulled the following off >the net last summer: > > Discompilation of GEMDOS > "Das TOS-listing BIOS/GEMDOS/VDI" > by Kramer, Riebl, Huebner does an english version of this document exist?? nevertheless, where can a copy of "Das TOS-listing ..." be found on the net?? (i like that name: Das TOS-listing...) :-) -- Ignac A. Kolenko (The Ig) watmath!watcgl!electro!ignac "Catholic or Protestant, you got not choice. I tried to scream, but I lost my voice!" from 'Irish Eyes Don't Smile Tonight' by SUBURBAN DISTORTION
mboen@nixpbe.UUCP (Martin Boening) (05/19/89)
cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: > ..... . If that is >illegal then wouldn't it be illegal to modify the carburator in my new >Ford, etc...? Oh yeah, this guy was from Atari. A few other users saw >things my way. I personally thought that after the purchase of my >computer it was my right to change/alter/modify any part of the >computer that I saw fit. What do you think about this? Myself and a > ...... What?? Disassembling the ROMS ILLEGAL?. Well, then there's a very illegal book around over here in Germany, called something like (and don't nail me on this one) 'GEMDOS - the complete listing'. Actually it's two books: part 1: bios, xbios, ... part 2: ????? I also know of a guy who starting off from this book adapted TOS to his own likes, fixed some bugs and then renamed the whole operating system to 'KAOS' (don't ask me why). The patches were described in an article in c't. So, if these books can be published, I don't see why disassembling the ROMS at home should be illegal. I hope this helps. Martin -- Email: in the USA -> ...!uunet!philabs!linus!nixbur!mboening.pad outside USA -> {...!mcvax}!unido!nixpbe!mboening.pad Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Nixdorf Computer AG, DS2, Pontanusstr. 55, 4790 Paderborn, W.-Germany
obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu (Mark O'Bryan) (05/19/89)
In article <8905171833.AA01200@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>, cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: > > computer that I saw fit. What do you think about this? Myself and a > couple of friends are (1) really impatient for the ROM upgrade (which > Tramiel just said wouldn't be available anyway for the 1040) and (2) > very curious to see if we can "improve" and debug this version of TOS > enough to suit our needs. BTW, both of my friends are PhD candidates First off, I'd be curious to know which Tramiel said that the ROM upgrade would not be available for the 1040's, and in what context the remark appeared. That's not my understanding, nor does it jivv with any of the many comments from Atari people here on the net. And if it's not true, do we really need to stir up a hornet's nest of rumor and speculation? We've been told that they WILL be made available, the only question is when. Secondly, there is no way for Atari to know (or care) what you do with your ST in the privacy of your own home. Disassemble the ROMs, rewrite the whole 192 kB to your liking, and enjoy. Or tear your machine apart, and scatter the pieces all over your yard. Whatever turns you on. Where your rights stop, and Atari's begin, however, is when you distribute copies of your "derivative work". And that's what you will have created, since you based your work staring with the Atari ROMs. Since Atari holds copyrights (at the very least) on the contents of their ROMs (just like every other manufacturer), you will be breaking the law and exposing yourself to prosecution if you distribute your variant. Even if you don't sell it, or intend to profit by it in any way, but simply give it away to a friend, that is an infraction. Your message started by saying that this was just for "your own little ST". It ended by admitting that this would be a team project, involving at least 3 people, with distribution to others (like yourself) who are simply observing. Whether you can get away with it (i.e., will Atari chose to sue you) is a separate issue from the question you asked, and depends on a number of factors. But strictly speaking, John Townsend was correct in informing you that what you were proposing was illegal. There are a couple of ways you might avoid legal entanglements. One would be to simply distribute ONLY your changes, as a set of patches to be applied to the Atari-owned ROMs. I'd don't know how practical this would be, due to the number of ROM variants (from Atari) that exist (i.e., different date codes within the same ROM version level). Another possibility would be to rewrite the ROMs yourself, WITHOUT disassembling them first, based ONLY on the published documentation and specifications. I also doubt this would be practical, due to the quality/accuracy of available documenta- tion. This would be required if you wanted to run any of the standard software that depends on the Atari ROMs. Of course, if you don't care about that, and only want to run something like Minix (for example) you could start from scratch. But Minix already seems to run pretty well without resorting to the Tabula Rosa approach, so I'm not sure why you'd waste your time when there are more interesting things to work on. And lastly, Allan Pratt and many other hardworking people at Atari have already put a lot of work into fixing exactly the bugs and problems you're annoyed with. It didn't sound to me like it was exactly a picnic, and they had the commented source code to start with. Do you really think you could do better? Why not just keep your pants on and see what TOS 1.4 has to offer. If you don't like THAT, THEN you can start bitching. ;-) -- Mark T. O'Bryan Internet: obryan@gumby.cc.wmich.edu Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, MI 49008
covertr@gtephx.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (05/23/89)
In article <8905171833.AA01200@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>, cmm1@CUNIXA.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Christopher M Mauritz) writes: > Recently, I posed the following question in the Atari ST roundtable > on GEnie (actually, I did not phrase it exactly like this, but this > is the gist of what I said): > > Would I have any legal problems with Atari if I disassembled the ROM > code, altered it to suit my individual needs, and then burned a new set > of ROMs for my machine? I also stated that the ROMS would be used only > in my machine and that (1) I would not release the original code to > anyone and (2) I wouldn't release the bastardized code to anyone > either. All of this is for my own little 1040ST. > > Well, a Mr. Townsend replied that he thought the process was illegal, > but he didn't give a reason. I can't understand why. If that is > illegal then wouldn't it be illegal to modify the carburator in my new > Ford, etc...? Oh yeah, this guy was from Atari. A few other users saw > things my way. I personally thought that after the purchase of my > computer it was my right to change/alter/modify any part of the > computer that I saw fit. What do you think about this? Myself and a > couple of friends are (1) really impatient for the ROM upgrade (which > Tramiel just said wouldn't be available anyway for the 1040) and (2) > very curious to see if we can "improve" and debug this version of TOS > enough to suit our needs. BTW, both of my friends are PhD candidates > in Comp Sci and one of them is involved in heavy OS research. Hehe, > I'm just gonna watch and maybe learn a bit in the process. We have > tons of equipment to burn the ROMs and a very cheap source of EPROMs. > What do the rest of you netters think? > > Curious as hell, > > Chris Mauritz > cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu > No points for 2nd BEST! In the old days of S-100 buss computers, I had the SOURCE code to CP/M-80, and it was typical of hackers to rewrite it. In fact, an alternate OS called ZCPM, or somehting like that, came out. It was CPM completely rewritten in Z80 assembly language. I don't know what Digital Research Inc (owners of CPM-80 et al ) thought of all this, but it didn't seem to stop the hackers. But, cpm was more open anyway, in that you had to modify the BIOS for your specific hardware for a new system. I had rewritten the BIOS to use an IO card I designed and a floppy disk controller that I designed. The ST is much more of a closed system in that you don't have the docs that CPM had for its BIOS. Also, since TOS is ROMed people don't seem to hack it up much anyway. It is too bad because there is an awful lot of neat hardware (CD ROMs, Bournelloui boexes, scanners, etc) which could be interfaced to the ST if the system software interface were better understood. As things stand now, we wait for two years for Atari to update TOS and add new hardware. Oh well, things change slowly for us Atarians!! It was neat to have the source code to CPM though. I would like to get the source code to TOS. As far as disassemblying your ROMS, TOS is mainly written in 'C' (I believe) and so the raw 68000 code may not be too intellible unless you do a lot of 'C' debugging, CPM-80 was written in 8080 assembly language, so it was relatively easy to disassembly (and quite a bit smaller then TOS also!!). Of course, soemone from Atari could just , ahem, let us 'look' at the source to TOS for a few minutes.. We can be trusted here, right folks :-) richard (where's my source to TOS??) covert
cs163afu@sdcc10.ucsd.EDU (Some call me...Tim) (05/23/89)
In article <375@nixpbe.UUCP> mboen@nixpbe.UUCP (Martin Boening) writes: > >What?? Disassembling the ROMS ILLEGAL?. Well, then there's a very illegal >book around over here in Germany... The publisher of that book I'm sure has a license to print those, as otherwise they are making copies of the ROMs without compensating Atari. ABACUS Internals also has a disassembly of the ROMs in it, by the way. As far as modifying TOS is concerned: Here is a piece of a file I downloaded from the net a while ago. It was written by an attorney who practices computer and copyright law, Jordan J. Breslow. I can send the entire article to anyone who's interested. | 0.9 Now, you're a clever programmer, and you know the program could |run faster with some modifications. You could also add graphics and an |interactive mode and lots of other stuff. What does copyright law say |about your plans? Well... several different things, actually. First, |recall that the copyright owner has the exclusive right to make derivative |works. A derivative work is a work based on one or more preexisting works. |It's easy to recognize derivative works when you think about music or |books. If a book is copyrighted, derivative works could include a |screenplay, an abridged edition, or a translation into another language. |Derivative works of songs might be new arrangements (like the jazz version |of Love Potion Number 9), a movie soundtrack, or a written transcription, |or a "long version," (such as the fifteen minute version of "Wipe Out" with |an extended drum solo for dance parties). In my opinion, you are making a |derivative work when you take the store-bought word processor and modify it |to perform differently. The same would be true if you "translated" a COBOL |program into BASIC. Those are copyright infringements -- you've horned in |on the copyright owner's exclusive right to make derivative works. There |is, however, some breathing room. The Software Act generously allows you |to "adapt" the code if the adaptation "is created as an essential step in |the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine ..." |For example, you might have to modify the code to make it compatible with |your machine. From this I would say that strict bug fixes are OK, as that could be viewed as an "essential step in the utilization" etc., but any other changes would, in a strict sense, be illegal. I don't see why Atari would particularly care if someone in the privacy of their home changed TOS to do whatever, as long as it was never distributed, however... -------------- Tim Mensch tmensch@ucsd.edu