grx0644@uoft02.utoledo.edu (05/14/91)
I have been dabbling with the 1571 roms, trying out different mods to the roms (using eproms and such). I am wondering if I can sell my hypothetical UPgrade, would I be breaking the copy right laws since some of the code in the chip was not written by me??? I am asking as I have binary images of the newest 1571 upgrades and have installed them into my drive. If I can figure out some useful changes, would I be in violation of copy right laws by selling a new chip. Any legal amateures out there want to take a crack at this one?? (BTW: I bought the newest 1571 upgrade directly from commodore, so it ain't pirated!!) :) Tony +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Anthony Paul Schliesser GRX0644@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU| |The University of Toledo GRX0644@UOFT02.BITNET | |College of Pharmacy FAC2966@UOFT01.UTOLEDO.EDU| | FAC2966@UOFT01.BITNET | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
flatlinr@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Miguel Pedro) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May13.230536.3536@uoft02.utoledo.edu> grx0644@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >I have been dabbling with the 1571 roms, trying out different mods to the roms >(using eproms and such). I am wondering if I can sell my hypothetical UPgrade, >would I be breaking the copy right laws since some of the code in the chip was >not written by me??? I believe you can't do that. Using someone else's code, even in part, is a copyright violation. You can't modify a copyrighted program in any way. Since the code is not PD, you can't use it for your own purposes. However, if you only use the algorithm, and you program everything from scratch, I think you have the right to sell it since it will be original work. Obviously, this is a time-consuming idea :-) I suggest you to contact Commodore and try to get consent from them. If they accept to let you modify and sell the upgrade chip, I think you won't have any problems in doing so. You can also contact the author directly (if he retained the rights). P.S. I am not a lawyer, and I'm happy not to be one! :-) -- Miguel Pedro (Send any E-mail to flatlinr@info.polymtl.ca) (cinf07@info.polymtl.ca was my previous account)
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) (05/16/91)
grx0644@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >I have been dabbling with the 1571 roms, trying out different mods to the roms >(using eproms and such). I am wondering if I can sell my hypothetical UPgrade, >would I be breaking the copy right laws since some of the code in the chip was >not written by me??? I am asking as I have binary images of the newest 1571 >upgrades and have installed them into my drive. If I can figure out some useful >changes, would I be in violation of copy right laws by selling a new chip. Any >legal amateures out there want to take a crack at this one?? (BTW: I bought >the newest 1571 upgrade directly from commodore, so it ain't pirated!!) :) I think the safest thing you can do is to outline the modifications which are needed to do your "upgrade", or of some device which will upgrade the ROMs given that the user supply the originals. You can't sell the original code. That would be bad. I base this argument on the story about MACOS, which contained a large amount of ACOS code. Distribution was ordered halted by the owner of ACOS. If it was distributed as an upgrade kit, it probably would have survived. >|Anthony Paul Schliesser GRX0644@UOFT02.UTOLEDO.EDU| >|The University of Toledo GRX0644@UOFT02.BITNET | >|College of Pharmacy FAC2966@UOFT01.UTOLEDO.EDU| >| FAC2966@UOFT01.BITNET | -- /// ____ \\\ |"What? What's going on? Who's this?... Ladies and | |/ / \ \| | | Gentlemen, a big hand please for the Great Prophet Zarquon." \\_|\____/|_// |"Uh, thank you, sorry I'm late, so many things cropping up at greg \_\\\/ hoss | the last moment. How are we for time? Have I just got a min
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (05/17/91)
In article <1991May13.230536.3536@uoft02.utoledo.edu> grx0644@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >I have been dabbling with the 1571 roms, trying out different mods to the roms >(using eproms and such). I am wondering if I can sell my hypothetical UPgrade, >would I be breaking the copy right laws since some of the code in the chip was >not written by me? IBM recently won a suit against another company in similar circumstances. The other company (whose name excapes me) offered a service whereby they would increase the efficiency of some crucial bit of the OS of your IBM mainframe. They didn't work on copies, they worked on your own legally-owned OS tape. (Or something like that... I'm not sure what the precise nature of the storage medium was.) Anyway, the courts said that they couldn't do that because they were preparing a derivative work without the copyright owner's (IBM's) consent and selling it. In practical terms, this means that you can modify your own copy of someone else's code (fair use doctrine), but you can't sell the modifications to anyone else. Whether or not you can give away the result of your labour (i.e. a set of diffs or a kit, as someone else suggested) is an open question, as far as I know. If your ROM modifications are really interesting, why don't you ask Commodore for a licence to redistribute them to legitimate owners of original Commodore ROM's? I'm sure that Commodore wouldn't ask for much of a royalty, if any. The 1571 is, after all, out of production. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) (05/18/91)
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >grx0644@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: >>I have been dabbling with the 1571 roms, trying out different mods to the roms >>(using eproms and such). I am wondering if I can sell my hypothetical UPgrade, >>would I be breaking the copy right laws since some of the code in the chip was >>not written by me? > IBM recently won a suit against another company in similar >circumstances. The other company (whose name excapes me) offered a >service whereby they would increase the efficiency of some crucial bit >of the OS of your IBM mainframe. They didn't work on copies, they >worked on your own legally-owned OS tape. (Or something like that... >I'm not sure what the precise nature of the storage medium was.) >Anyway, the courts said that they couldn't do that because they were >preparing a derivative work without the copyright owner's (IBM's) >consent and selling it. Mainframes are a different concern. They are often only licenced for use. In fact, it came time that one of the machines here needed an "upgrade" to increase the system speed. The sent over one person, who went in, flipped one switch, and the machine ran at the higher speed. It would be illegal for them to switch it themselves. > In practical terms, this means that you can modify your own copy of >someone else's code (fair use doctrine), but you can't sell the modifications >to anyone else. Whether or not you can give away the result of your >labour (i.e. a set of diffs or a kit, as someone else suggested) is an >open question, as far as I know. Someone else mentioned that they had taken their copy of the Macintosh Finder and made several modifications to the text and graphics part of the Finder, making it very Dr. Who oriented. However he said he couldn't give out copies, even for free, only instructions or an application which would modify another Finder to the same state. With the volume of modifications done, this would be very difficult to figure out. If done has a self-modification kit, containing no original CBM code, you shouldn't have problems. > If your ROM modifications are really interesting, why don't you ask >Commodore for a licence to redistribute them to legitimate owners of >original Commodore ROM's? I'm sure that Commodore wouldn't ask for much >of a royalty, if any. The 1571 is, after all, out of production. It would be best to consult with Commodore, yes. Also I suggest consulting an actual lawyer on the subject, and never take advice taken from the net as conclusive evidence from a qualified legal assistant, even if they say that they are. >Marc R. Roussel >mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca -- /// ____ \\\ Lig "By the way, what does teleport mean?" "Where | |/ / \ \| | Lury does it say teleport!" "Oh, right over here, just \\_|\____/|_// Jr. below the word Emergency, above the word `System', greg \_\\\/ hoss.unl.edu and next to a sign which says `Out of Order'."
slogan@ms.uky.edu (Stan Logan) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May15.040012.17313@vlsi.polymtl.ca> flatlinr@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Miguel Pedro) writes: > >I believe you can't do that. Using someone else's code, even in part, is >a copyright violation. You can't modify a copyrighted program in any way. >Since the code is not PD, you can't use it for your own purposes. > >-- > Miguel Pedro > (Send any E-mail to flatlinr@info.polymtl.ca) > (cinf07@info.polymtl.ca was my previous account) Actually, you can modify any copyrighted program in any way for your own use ONLY. You cannot then resell the new product legally without permission from the original copyright owner. Just a little clarification (correction). Stan
treesh@vangogh.helios.nd.edu (05/21/91)
I am by no means a laywer, but I too once made a program that I wantted to sell for profit, however it did contain some code that was already copywritten thru another publisher. I wrote a letter to the copywrite holder and explained my intetions to sell part of his code with mine for profit. We was so pleased that I asked him for permission that he let me do it, and with out having to pay any royatlies to him for the use of his routines. I dont know what the polocy would be with CBM on something like this. ctfm
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May17.191328.26845@unlinfo.unl.edu> greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.) writes: >It would be best to consult with Commodore, yes. Also I suggest >consulting an actual lawyer on the subject, and never take advice taken >from the net as conclusive evidence from a qualified legal assistant, even >if they say that they are. Agreed. Many of us, myself included, are far too eager to profer advice in areas where we have no real competence. Given recent legal history, I still think that my original advice (being extremely cautious with derivative works) is prudent. If the original poster is a student, he or she can get free, competent advice from his or her campus legal aid (at least in Canada). Unlike me, student legal aid representatives are quick to direct you elsewhere when that's the most appropriate course of action. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
kentsu@microsoft.UUCP (Kent SULLIVAN) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May16.210459.11425@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: > If your ROM modifications are really interesting, why don't you ask >Commodore for a licence to redistribute them to legitimate owners of >original Commodore ROM's? I'm sure that Commodore wouldn't ask for much >of a royalty, if any. The 1571 is, after all, out of production. I think this is what CMD did... They have a legal agreement with CBM to produce their ROMs. I know for sure they asked permission to distribute the unmodified ROMs (what you get when you flip JiffyDOS OFF) and I think they asked permission to distribute the CBM code that remained unmodified in their own ROM. Kent Sullivan Microsoft Corporation The opinions expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.