wolfe@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (John V. Wolfe) (06/08/89)
A guy here at the MIT AI lab got a disk in the mail with no return
address. It contained a README file (included here), the TeachText
application, and a Stuffit archive containing some source code. The
listing of the filenames in the archive are included after the text of
the read-me file. Makes for very interesting reading.
===============
5/22/89
The file called "Rom Src (Stuffit)" contains the complete
assembly language source to both Color QuickDraw and all
the hardware Equate files for the various Macintoshes ROMs.
The files have been twice-encrypted using Stuffit 1.5.1.
The password is "source".
The next mailing will consist of the complete source to the
hierarchical filing system and all the device drivers. Over
several weeks, we will distribute the entire source to the
Macintosh ROM as well as the source to System software
6.0.3, Finder 6.1, and AppleTalk 2.0. System 7.0 will be
distributed as soon as we secure a copy of it. Our objective
at Apple is to distribute everything that prevents other
manufacturers from creating legal copies of the Macintosh.
As an organization, the nuPrometheus League has no ambition
beyond seeing the genius of a few Apple employees benefit the
entire world, not just dissipated by Apple Corporate through
litigation and ill-will.
Anyone interested in directly receiving our next mailing should
place a classified ad sometime during the month of July in the
Bay Area Computer Currents or MacWeek with the word "nuPrometheus"
along with their address. At that time you may make specific requests for
sources that you have interest in obtaining.
/signed/
The nuPrometheus League
(Software Artists for Information Dissemination)
===============
The following files were in the Stuffit archive:
ANGLES.a
Arcs.a
bitblt.a
BITMAPS.a
ccrsrcore.a
colmgr.a
colorasm.a
cqd.a
drawarc.a
DRAWLINE.a
drawtext.a
gdevice.a
GRAFASM.a
LCURSOR.a
LINES.a
OVALS.a
PACKRGN.a
patterns.a
pictures.a
POLYGONS.a
PUTLINE.a
PUTOVAL.a
PUTRGN.a
qd.a
RECTS.a
REGIONS.a
RGNBLT.a
RGNOP.A
RRECTS.a
seekMask.a
SEEKRGN.a
SORTPOINTS.a
STRETCH.a
text.a
UTIL.a
xcqd.a
Above CQD / Below Hardware:
bootequ.a
colorequ.a
DeclROMqu.a
disptable.a
fasttraps.a
inc.sum.a
undvideoequ.a
nAtalkequ.a
nEqu.a
nFastTraps.a
nFSPrivate.a
nHardwareEqu.a
nPrEqu.a
nPrivate.a
nQuickEqu.a
nSCSIEqu.a
nSMgrEqu.a
nSonyEqu.a
nSysEqu.a
nSysErr.a
nTEMacs.a
nTimeEqu.a
ntoolequ.a
nTraps.a
qdHooks.a
SlotIntEqu.a
SlotMgrMacs.a
StartMacs.a
xFixMath.a
xHardwareEqu.a
xPrivate.a
xSonyEqu.a
xSysEqu.a
xTimeEqu.a
======================================================================
John Wolfe Disclaimer: I don't know what's going on,
wolfe@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu I just live here!
545 Technology Square, Room 414
Cambridge, MA 02139
======================================================================samalone@athena.mit.edu (Stuart A. Malone) (06/08/89)
This has gotten out of hand. While I agree that Apple should not be allowed a monopoly on the Macintosh user interface, I defend their right to have the matter decided in court. Apple's lawsuit is not justification for a small group of people at Apple to take the law into their own hands. I am sure that these same people signed a secrecy agreement when they joined the company. If they are dissatisfied with actions taken by the company, they can resign. But to simultaneously receive paychecks from Apple and illegally distribute its copyrighted source code is the height of hypocracy. The illegal distribution of Macintosh ROM sources serves no useful purpose. Regardless of the outcome of the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit, the Macintosh ROM sources ARE protected by U.S. copyright laws. Any company or group attemping to use these sources in a non-Apple product would be defenseless in court, and would end up paying huge fines to Apple. Thus the nuPrometheus League's intention "to distribute everything that prevents other manufacturers from creating legal copies of the Macintosh" is simply a delusion. The Free Software Foundation is another organization that believes in the free and wide distribution of software. But unlike this nuPrometheus League, the FSF does not resort to illegal tactics to promote its ideas. In fact, the FSF goes to great lengths to ensure that its software is free of restrictive copyrights, and uses its own copyrights to ensure that its own software will remain free to all who wish to use it. I think it was a mistake that Apple was ever allowed to copyright the Macintosh user interface in the first place. But now that it has been done, there is no real substitute for settling the matter in court. A ruling in favor of Microsoft would set a precedent that might discourage or disallow onerous "look and feel" copyrights in the future. As for the nuPrometheus League, I feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, they have reacted childishly and self-destructively to a bad situation. I hope that next week they still have their jobs. --Stuart A. Malone samalone@athena.mit.edu
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (06/09/89)
In article <11894@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, samalone@athena.mit.edu (Stuart A. Malone) writes... >This has gotten out of hand. While I agree that Apple should not be allowed a >monopoly on the Macintosh user interface, I defend their right to have the >matter decided in court. Apple's lawsuit is not justification for a small >group of people at Apple to take the law into their own hands. I am sure that >these same people signed a secrecy agreement when they joined the company. If [...] >As for the nuPrometheus League, I feel sorry for them. Unfortunately, they >have reacted childishly and self-destructively to a bad situation. I hope that >next week they still have their jobs. You're right: this is getting ridiculous. Is this for real? If so -- and if these folks are identified -- I think losing their jobs will be the least of their worries, since this sort of stuff is indeed illegal. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine ------ MOFO knows!
bnfb@june.cs.washington.edu (Bjorn Freeman-Benson) (06/09/89)
Regarding the nuPrometheus League and the sources to the Mac ROMs:
Possesion of stolen goods is a crime. Putting an ad in the
paper and receiving these disks is receiving knowingly stolen
goods. Beware.
Bjorn N. Freeman-BensonDN5@PSUVM.BITNET (06/09/89)
Following up an article about an organization distributing sources to the
Mac ROMs and System.
I think that this may actually make cloning the Mac Roms and system harder.
Since part of making a legal clone is being able to claim not to have seen
the original source code (to protect in areas where the clone accidentally
duplicated the original), this may make it harder to prove that a given
programmer hasn't seen these sources. I can't make cloning harder, but it
may make LEGAL cloning more difficult.
On the other hand, I wouldn't mind taking a glimpse of these sources myself
;-).
Jay, etc.. (D. Jay Newman)
dn5 AT psuvm.bitnet
Disclaimer:
I am NOT a lawyer, so the above (including my name) should be taken as
possiblly, perhaps even likely, incorrect.casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (06/09/89)
I'm distressed by the assumption people are making -- that the Mac ROM sources were deliberately leaked to nuPrometheus by someone at Apple. I know nuPrometheus' letter kind of makes it sound that way, but so what? Unless I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that someone at Apple did not guard the sources carefully enough, but nothing worse. David Casseres Exclaimer: Poof!
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (06/10/89)
In article <2306@internal.Apple.COM>, casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes... >I'm distressed by the assumption people are making -- that the Mac ROM >sources were deliberately leaked to nuPrometheus by someone at Apple. I >know nuPrometheus' letter kind of makes it sound that way, but so what? [...] Good point; let's hope it's not someone at Apple. In either case it would sound like they didn't guard the sources safely enough: either someone from outside got ahold of them, or someone at Apple who had access felt they could get away with it. But like you said, who knows? One thing I think is a bit odd: the pirates say they're doing this to help people make "legal" copies of the Mac. Although (as The Analysts are saying) viewing Mac code might make it easier to clone, I would think that it would make it immeasureably harder legally: anytime a clone comes along, the CloneMakers will bear the additional burden of proving that they didn't use any of the source. In any case, these folks -- whether they're inside or outside Apple -- are weenies. Robert ------ ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu ------ generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
ech@cbnewsk.ATT.COM (ned.horvath) (06/10/89)
From article <2801@wheaties.ai.mit.edu>, by wolfe@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (John V. Wolfe): > A guy here at the MIT AI lab got a disk in the mail with no return > address. It contained a README file (included here), the TeachText > application, and a Stuffit archive containing some source code. The > listing of the filenames in the archive are included after the text of > the read-me file. Makes for very interesting reading. ... [ excerpts from the README file ] > The file called "Rom Src (Stuffit)" contains the complete > assembly language source to both Color QuickDraw and all > the hardware Equate files for the various Macintoshes ROMs. ... > The next mailing will consist of the complete source to the > hierarchical filing system and all the device drivers. Over > several weeks, we will distribute the entire source to the > Macintosh ROM as well as the source to System software > 6.0.3, Finder 6.1, and AppleTalk 2.0. System 7.0 will be > distributed as soon as we secure a copy of it. Our objective ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ > at Apple is to distribute everything that prevents other ^^ ^^^^^ > manufacturers from creating legal copies of the Macintosh. ... I suppose I'll get flamed by the good socialist denizens of the net for this posting, but I've got a real problem with this. You may disagree with Apple's corporate policies. By all means voice those disagreements. If you wish, emulate Stallman et al. in boycotting Apple and encouraging others to do so. If you are an Apple employee, voice these concerns to your management, offer to resign, or resign. But the materials your friend received are stolen goods. There is no other way to characterize them. Those who distributed them, and are offering to distribute more, are not simply breaking the law, they have serious ethical problems. To accept employment by Apple, and to betray the trust that that entails, is simply unconscionable. I may not agree with the antics of the Apple management and lawyers. And I'll defend your right to improve on ideas. I'll contribute to Stallman's defense fund, if it comes to that. But the actions of "nuPrometheus" aren't the actions of brave freedom fighters, they are the actions of scum. Would you want one for an employee? A lab partner? A friend? Would you trust them with ANYTHING? =Ned Horvath=
flatmas@ladder.cs.orst.edu (Scott Timothy Flatman) (06/10/89)
In article <734@occrsh.ATT.COM> jdsb@occrsh.UUCP (John_Babcock) writes: > > Please note that I do NOT intend to do the following, but > >What would happen to those people who advertise their name, address, and nuP... >in the newspaper specified? Can Apple take any action against the advertiser? > >I'm sure Apple will have one of it's lesser known employees advertise on >purpose so they can try to trace it back to the source. Or would the lack >of a return address stop them? Can't you gain some information from a >postmark? > >Again, I'm not going to advertise, but I was curious. > John >____________________________________________________________________________ >* John Babcock att!occrsh!jdsb >* AT&T Network Systems jdsb@occrsh.att.com >* Oklahoma City, OK Disclaimer: I speak on my own, not as AT&T. It's easy enough for Apple to work with the Postal Inspector. Everyone who gets a P.O. Box has to give a name(and sometimes a picture ID like a Drivers Licence) So if they have not falisfied their info to the post office(which they most likely did... :-( ) then they could track them down that way. I'm sure that Apple's legal department is capable and intends to find the guilty anyway they can. * I HOPE THE GUILTY ARE HUNG OUT TO DRY!!! * I don't like Apple's pricing much myself, BUT this is not going to help any. All that will be accopmlished is Apple spending more $$ to find and prosecute those that let the source code out. Obviously this won't be cheap, which can only( possibly ) be reflected in the bottom line... the prices of Apple's products. Remember that if you want the finest, most comfortable, and classiest automobile you buy a Bently turbo R not a Volkswagon!! Sometimes you have to pay a premium to have the finest computer around. ( I know I have a 5 Meg MacII myself :-) ) ----------------------------------------------------- Scott Flatman INTERNET: flatmas@ladder.cs.orst.edu UUCP: hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!ladder.cs.orst.edu!flatmas ---------------------------------
neff@pitstop.West.Sun.COM (Mike Neff) (06/10/89)
In article <2801@wheaties.ai.mit.edu> wolfe@mintaka.UUCP (John V. Wolfe) writes: >A guy here at the MIT AI lab got a disk in the mail with no return >address. It contained a README file (included here), the TeachText >application, and a Stuffit archive containing some source code. The >listing of the filenames in the archive are included after the text of >the read-me file. Makes for very interesting reading. > >John Wolfe Disclaimer: I don't know what's going on, >wolfe@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu I just live here! If anyone thinks that Apple hasn't noticed this mailing they are much mistaken. Apple is really *PO'ed*! A front page article in the San Jose Mercury News this morning stated that Apple execs are "aggressively investigating" this incident and want to nab whomever's responsible for this and put them in jail. They publicly stated that if they find employees have been involved in this leak they will be fired on the spot and prosecuted. It is unlikely that other companies will use this ROM code if it is stolen in their products for fear of copyright infringement suits, etc. Also, the magazine Bay Area Computer Currents stated that it wouldn't accept any ads that anyone might try to put in as the letter instructed people to do to get more of this ill-gotten information. I would be *really* careful about posting anything you received from these guys onto the net, since you might be viewed as contributing to the problem and will likely have an FBI man show up on your doorstep! Speaking for myself and not as a Sun employee, we may all have differing opinions of how "open" a company should be with its technology and certainly Apple gets rubbed for guarding its technology perhaps too much. However, it's one thing for a company to openly license and make publicly available its technology and quite another for an individual to steal this technology without this company's permission. Anyone who advocates this deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I too disagree with some of Apple's claims to ownership over some things under the guise of "look and feel", but ROM source code is clearly Apple's property and should be treated as such. Mike Neff mneff@sun.com Disclaimer: All opinions expressed above are completely my own and don't necessarily represent those of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
dorourke@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (David M. O'Rourke) (06/10/89)
Just adding my $0.02 to this interesting, but terrible action....
1) I don't always agree with Apple's pricing, but I will defend to the
perverbial {sp??} death their right to guard their source code. They
developed, debugged, and distribute a quality OS and why should someone
besides Apple have the right to distribute it?? Perhaps we could
hang these people out to dry along with Robert Morse. I think what
we're beginning to see is a serious ethical problem in the computer
industry. I know that who ever did this wouldn't ever have a place
in my company {should I ever get one :-) }.
2) Why would a "legitimate" clone maker touch this stuff with a 10 foot
pole. It seems to me that rather than making it easier for clones,
this rather public action has probably made it more difficult for clones
because Apple can claim that their code was *illegally* distributed
so any clone is now suspect.
3) How come no-one ever bitches about IBM or HP's pricing. An IBM PS/2 is
more or less just as much as a Macintosh. Our bookstore is selling
an IBM PS 30 with a 286 & 20 meg HD for approx. $2500.00, and a Mac SE
with a 20 meg HD is approx. $1900.00. If you want a quality product
you have to pay. I can see it now, hey Rolls, why don't you price your
Bentley down around here with the Ford escorts..
Oh well, perhaps this was a nickles worth of comment. But what ever happens
I hope Apple finds, fires {if appropriate}, and prosecutes who ever did this.
--
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\|/////////////////////////////////////////
David M. O'Rourke____________________|_____________dorourke@polyslo.calpoly.edu
| God doesn't know, he would have never designed it like that in the first |
|_ place. ____________________________________________________________________|mae@vygr.Sun.COM (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO}) (06/10/89)
I do not condone use of (allegedly) stolen material. In article <89160.093417DN5@PSUVM> DN5@PSUVM.BITNET writes: >Following up an article about an organization distributing sources to the >Mac ROMs and System. > >I think that this may actually make cloning the Mac Roms and system harder. I think a well accepted technique of legally reverse engineering technology is to have two groups, working in isolation from each other. First group uses whatever(legally, of course {:-), it takes to figure out what the X does, laser slice the die, disassmble the ROM, etc. This first group then generates a *complete* spec, warts and all. The second group then takes the spec. and generates the code, using only the spec. This technique was related to me by someone who had reverse engineered chips for a living. Claims they found several bugs in some chips, but left them in the spec. anyways to be compatable. Note under this technique, a complete, legally obtained specification is more dangerous to the owner of the technology. > Jay, etc.. (D. Jay Newman) > dn5 AT psuvm.bitnet >Disclaimer: > I am NOT a lawyer, so the above (including my name) should be taken as >possiblly, perhaps even likely, incorrect. ^ Same here, (except 'scuse the spelling)! # mike (sun!mae), M/S 8-04 "The people are the water, the army are the fish" Mao Tse-tung
mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (06/10/89)
Apparently, Apple has distributed a message over AppleLink to a large portion of
the employees saying that if any Apple employee is found to be connected with
the ROM source code release, they will be facing immediate termination. If
they are lucky, that would be all that they would have happen to them. Can
you say liability and damages?
-Michael
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)Raines.Cohen@f444.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Raines Cohen) (06/10/89)
> It contained a README file, the TeachText application ...
Oooh! As if distributing ROM sources weren't bad enough, it looks like they are distributing TeachText without a license agreement...
-- Raines Cohen
SYSOP, BMUG BBS
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNet: 1:161/445 UUCP: sun!apple!bmug!<User.Name>
INTERNET: bmug!<User.Name>@apple.COM or <User.Name>@bmug.fidonet.org
USNAIL: BMUG, 1442A Walnut St. #62, Berkeley, CA 94709-1496
-------------------------------------------------------------
BMUG Newsletter articles due June 15! Authors get free membership.
Send articles to: pub@bmug.fidonet.orgnagle@well.UUCP (John Nagle) (06/13/89)
In article <109301@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> mae@sun.UUCP (Mike Ekberg, Sun {GPD-LEGO}) writes: >>I think that this may actually make cloning the Mac Roms and system harder. > >I think a well accepted technique of legally reverse engineering technology >is to have two groups, working in isolation from each other. First group uses >whatever(legally, of course {:-), it takes to figure out what the X does, >laser slice the die, disassmble the ROM, etc. This first group then generates >a *complete* spec, warts and all. > >The second group then takes the spec. and generates the code, using only the >spec. > That's how Chips and Technologies, the primary maker of parts for PC clones, does it. > >Note under this technique, a complete, legally obtained specification is more >dangerous to the owner of the technology. > That's quite true. Given a complete specification of the interface offered to a Mac application, it would be straightforward to develop compatibility packages allowing one to run Mac programs on other 68000-based machines, such as Suns, etc. There are still "look and feel" issues, but it's not legally settled yet whether copyright protection really can be used to protect interfaces. It may well turn out that doing so is an antitrust violation. IBM tried to use patents and trade secrets to prevent others from building IBM-compatible peripherals for IBM mainframes in the 1960s and 1970s, and they lost in court consistently. Today, many vendors build equipment compatible with the machines of others, and it is settled law that one can do so. The same reasoning may turn out to apply to software interfaces. The effort by Atari to make Nitendo cartridges may well produce the litigation that settles this issue. As Mac applications get cleaned up, and more run under both UNIX and the Mac OS, the application interface will inherently become better defined. It should be possible today to develop an interface kit which allows the execution of "well-behaved" applications on Suns, Amigas, and such. A working definition of "well-behaved" is that the application must run on the full range of Mac hardware and operating systems. If it does so, it probably conforms to the interface spec as defined in "Inside Macintosh, vols I-N". And, of course, nothing in "Inside Macintosh" can be a trade secret, since those are published books. John Nagle
landman%hanami@Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman) (06/15/89)
In article <11894@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> samalone@athena.mit.edu (Stuart A. Malone) writes: >Regardless of the outcome of the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit, the Macintosh ROM >sources ARE protected by U.S. copyright laws. Any company or group attemping >to use these sources in a non-Apple product would be defenseless in court, and >would end up paying huge fines to Apple. Thus the nuPrometheus League's >intention "to distribute everything that prevents other manufacturers from >creating legal copies of the Macintosh" is simply a delusion. In other words, the nuPrometheus League is probably actually an Apple ploy to try to get potential Mac clone makers to "contaminate" themselves so that they can be more easily sued. And to expose themselves in public (by posting ads) so that they can be tracked down and restrained. Of course, there are countries in which such considerations are more or less meaningless, so we may at least see Mac clones in some parts of the world from this. >I hope that next week they still have their jobs. Why? So they can keep up the "good" work? Howard A. Landman landman@sun.com
enwall@Apple.COM (Tim Enwall) (06/15/89)
In article <109952@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> landman@sun.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes: >In article <11894@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> samalone@athena.mit.edu (Stuart A. Malone) writes: >>Regardless of the outcome of the Apple/Microsoft lawsuit, the Macintosh ROM >>sources ARE protected by U.S. copyright laws. Any company or group attemping >>to use these sources in a non-Apple product would be defenseless in court, and >>would end up paying huge fines to Apple. Thus the nuPrometheus League's >>intention "to distribute everything that prevents other manufacturers from >>creating legal copies of the Macintosh" is simply a delusion. > >In other words, the nuPrometheus League is probably actually an Apple ploy >to try to get potential Mac clone makers to "contaminate" themselves so >that they can be more easily sued. And to expose themselves in public >(by posting ads) so that they can be tracked down and restrained. > >Of course, there are countries in which such considerations are more >or less meaningless, so we may at least see Mac clones in some parts >of the world from this. > Judging by the reaction among the people I know here, I would HIGHLY doubt this was a planned Apple action simply to make it harder for people to clone the Mac. Of course, these are my opinions only, and I don't make Apple policy, but... Tim Enwall enwall@apple.com