U0179@DGOGWDG5.BITNET ("GWDGV1::WHUEBNER") (06/21/88)
In response to your mail dated 21-APR-88 (Vol 88 Issue 211) - Posting GEMDOS improvements - you asked ... >2: a book that was recently published in Germany with a discompilation of > of GEMDOS. This last thing seems to be fully illegal to me. Is one really > allowed to do this? As one of the three authors (part AHDI) of the book "Das TOS-Listing - BIOS/GEMDOS/VDI (Kramer,Riebl,Huebner) I have to answer your question with Y E A H . We are really allowed to publish this book with a written permission of ATARI-Deutschland. Best regards PS. Sorry about the late response, I am new on this NET and it takes some time to step through old reviews, by the way, I am also very interested in testing your JAMDOS, too. +--------------------------------------------+ | BITNET: U0179 at DG0GWDG5 (W.Huebner) | | VAXMAIL: PSI%45551032808::GWDGV1::WHUEBNER | | West Germany | +--------------------------------------------+--------------------+ | All opinions are my own, and not necessarily always correct ... | | You know >>> NOBODY IS PERFECT <<< | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole) (06/27/88)
In article <8806211323.AA02010@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> U0179@DGOGWDG5.BITNET ("GWDGV1::WHUEBNER") writes: .... >>2: a book that was recently published in Germany with a discompilation of >> of GEMDOS. This last thing seems to be fully illegal to me. Is one really >> allowed to do this? .... >As one of the three authors (part AHDI) of the book "Das TOS-Listing - >BIOS/GEMDOS/VDI (Kramer,Riebl,Huebner) I have to answer your question >with Y E A H . .... >We are really allowed to publish this book with a written permission >of ATARI-Deutschland. All under the assumption that Atari Germany is actually the copyright holder for GEMDOS and VDI (which Atari Germany is NOT as far as I know, but this is naturally for DRI and Atari to fight out.......). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- UUCP: ...mcvax!cernvax!forty2!poole Simon Poole BITNET: K538915@CZHRZU1A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (06/29/88)
In article <343@forty2.UUCP>, poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole) writes: ] ] ] In article <8806211323.AA02010@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> U0179@DGOGWDG5.BITNET ("GWDGV1::WHUEBNER") writes: ] .... ] >>2: a book that was recently published in Germany with a discompilation of ] >> of GEMDOS. This last thing seems to be fully illegal to me. Is one really ] >> allowed to do this? ] .... ] >As one of the three authors (part AHDI) of the book "Das TOS-Listing - ] >BIOS/GEMDOS/VDI (Kramer,Riebl,Huebner) I have to answer your question ] >with Y E A H . ] .... ] >We are really allowed to publish this book with a written permission ] >of ATARI-Deutschland. ] ] All under the assumption that Atari Germany is actually the copyright ] holder for GEMDOS and VDI (which Atari Germany is NOT as far as I know, ] but this is naturally for DRI and Atari to fight out.......). ] -- ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ] UUCP: ...mcvax!cernvax!forty2!poole Simon Poole ] BITNET: K538915@CZHRZU1A ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, there was a recent posting to the effect that it is illegal in the US to prohibit disassembly of code sold or licensed if the disassembly was for the purpose of using the software (do you do anything that is totally useless?) -- a reasonable extrapolation is that it would also be legal to sell a copy of the disassembly to someone who wanted to use the disassembled software -- though I'm not sure about how reasonable a bunch of lawyers would be! [I am refering to the Quaid Software case.] In that case, Atari and DRI have no say on the issue. As a corrilary, many years ago a company published a disassembly of the TRS-80 ROMs, printing only text (no hex codes) so as to avoid "translating" the contents of the copyrighted ROMs -- neither Microsoft nor Tandy did anything about it, so there is some precident (again in the USA -- German law may be quite different). Charles Marslett chasm@killer.UUCP
andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) (07/06/88)
In article <4640@killer.UUCP> chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes: >-- a reasonable extrapolation is that it would also be legal to sell a copy of >the disassembly to someone who wanted to use the disassembled software -- though >I'm not sure about how reasonable a bunch of lawyers would be! [I am refering How different is this from someone making a copy of a commercial program, then selling the copy ? -- andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy Commodore-Amiga, Inc. "Un*x is the answer, but only if you phrase the question very carefully. Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) (07/07/88)
In article <4186@cbmvax.UUCP>, andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes: > In article <4640@killer.UUCP> chasm@killer.UUCP (Charles Marslett) writes: > >-- a reasonable extrapolation is that it would also be legal to sell a copy of > >the disassembly to someone who wanted to use the disassembled software -- though > >I'm not sure about how reasonable a bunch of lawyers would be! [I am refering > > How different is this from someone making a copy of a commercial program, > then selling the copy ? > > -- > andy finkel {uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy > Commodore-Amiga, Inc. > Actually, I am not really sure it is any different at all. Is it any different from someone writing a "new" program and selling copies of it -- since any salable program has to be a lot like other, previously sold, programs or no one will have any idea what it is for. The whole point of copyright is to give away as much of the store as possible, and still keep the storekeeper from starting a revolution (I don't know who said that, but it is pretty accurate!). And if anyone thinks the whole copyright schtick makes any sense at all, compare the recent rulings in Canada and Louisiana. I believe no rational individual can agree with both! Charles Marslett chasm@killer.UUCP P.S. It is a lot of fun to watch though! > "Un*x is the answer, but only if you phrase the question very > carefully. > > Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share. > I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.
exodus@mfgfoc.UUCP (Greg Onufer) (07/08/88)
SIMPLE, LEGAL (?) Solution: Write a program to output the assembly (with labels, comments, etc) but using the contents of the ROM to produce the actual assembler code. Everybody who bought an ST has the ROMs (maybe a few people still loading from disk?).... their ROMs plus labels and comments doesn't constitute a crime, does it? Package: disassembler comment-field files for each ROM version symbol table/label info for each ROM version. Requires some work, eh? --Greg -- Greg Onufer GEnie: G.ONUFER University of the Pacific UUCP: -= Focus Semiconductor =- exodus@mfgfoc ...!sun!daver!mfgfoc!exodus (and postmaster/exodus@uop.edu) AT&T: 415-965-0604 USMAIL: #901 1929 Crisanto Ave, Mtn View, CA 94040
tom@Mills.berkeley.edu (tom erbe) (07/08/88)
Greg Onufer writes:
"Write a program to output the assembly (with labels, comments, etc)
"but using the contents of the ROM to produce the actual assembler
"code. Everybody who bought an ST has the ROMs (maybe a few people
"still loading from disk?).... their ROMs plus labels and comments
"doesn't constitute a crime, does it?
But when one uses this program, one is copying the ROMs. Does the software
license from Atari (is there one?) governing the system software allow
making copies for one's personal use? If it does, then this program should
be legal. If not, well, forget it.
Tom Erbe-Technical Director-Center for Contemporary Music-Mills College
tom@mills.berkeley.edu -or- tom@jiff.berkeley.eduwoodside@ttidca.TTI.COM (George Woodside) (07/08/88)
In article <11767@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> tom@Mills.UUCP (tom erbe) writes: >Greg Onufer writes: > >"Write a program to output the assembly (with labels, comments, etc) >"but using the contents of the ROM to produce the actual assembler >"code. Everybody who bought an ST has the ROMs (maybe a few people >"still loading from disk?).... their ROMs plus labels and comments >"doesn't constitute a crime, does it? > >But when one uses this program, one is copying the ROMs. Does the software >license from Atari (is there one?) governing the system software allow >making copies for one's personal use? If it does, then this program should >be legal. If not, well, forget it. > I'm not a lawer, and I don't even play one on tv :^). However, there was a program which performed exactly this process on the CP/M operating system a few years ago. You pruchased the program, and ran it on your operating version of CP/M. It wrote an assembly source file which, when re-assembled, would re-create the configuration you were running at the time. Of course, it didn't include dis-assembly of the custom part of the BIOS (for you old hackers who remember writing CP/M BIOS drivers. De-blocking sure was fun, wasn't it?). The package, as purchased, included a dis-assembly comment file, and a driving program which read the code present in the machine. It added the text from the comment file to the code generated from dis-assembling the operating system to provide the assembly source file. This program, while not sold by Digital Research, was on the market for a couple of years. I don't know if Digital Research ever went after the authors of the program, but it seemed to eventually fade away from lack of sales, after the first initial onslaught. In any event, such a task for the ST ROM's would be a major investment in time and effort. And, by the time it was completed, the new ROMs would be available, right :^) ? -- *George R. Woodside - Citicorp/TTI - Santa Monica, CA *Path: ..!{philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!woodside
jason@lakesys.UUCP (Jason) (07/09/88)
In article <11767@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, tom@Mills.berkeley.edu (tom erbe) writes: > Greg Onufer writes: > [What he wrote... Having a program written to disassemble the ROMs with ] > [comments, etc. ] > "doesn't constitute a crime, does it? > > But when one uses this program, one is copying the ROMs. Does the software > license from Atari (is there one?) governing the system software allow > making copies for one's personal use? If it does, then this program should > be legal. If not, well, forget it. > > Tom Erbe-Technical Director-Center for Contemporary Music-Mills College I would seem that you bought the computer, with the ROMs, for your personal use. Now, if you were to distribute the disassembly, you'd be out of the arena of personal use, so that seems to be out entirely. However, you bought the ROMs and therefore can do with them as you please (within the scope of your personal use). I'm not a lawyer (nor am I studying to be one). This is just an opinion. -- Jason - Not your average iconoclast
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/09/88)
Well there is a precedent for this sort of stuff. There was (and is) a company
that sold a program and datafile that when run on a CP/M-80 V2.2 system would
produce a commented assembly language version of the CCP and the BDOS. It
did this by matching the comments to the disassembly while keeping track of
such things as entry points and such which were at known places. I heard from
a source I trust that DRI tried to stop him but couldn't. I do know you can
still buy this program.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes) (07/09/88)
In article <11767@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, tom@Mills.berkeley.edu (tom erbe) writes: > But when one uses this program, one is copying the ROMs. Does the software > license from Atari (is there one?) governing the system software allow > making copies for one's personal use? Doesn't matter if Atari's license does or not, the copyright law (in the U.S., at least) does. You're not allowed to give away the copies, but you are allowed to copy the software yourself for backup purposes. You are also allowed to modify the software for your own personal use. Distributing your changed software is not allowed, as this is a `derivative work.' If you have a program that makes the changes to the software (like a `wedge', or a device driver) you can distribute THAT. -- {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes "Happiness lies in being priviledged to work hard for long hours in doing whatever you think is worth doing." -- Robert A. Heinlein --