Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!m.cs.uiuc.edu!roundup.crhc.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!unlinfo.unl.edu!hoss!greg
From: greg@hoss.unl.edu (Lig Lury Jr.)
Subject: Re: The Law,Chips,Code......A question
Message-ID: <1991May17.191328.26845@unlinfo.unl.edu>
Sender: news@unlinfo.unl.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: hoss.unl.edu
Organization: GBBS/ACOS Sysop Support
References: <12031@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <1991May13.104535.42722@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <1991May13.230536.3536@uoft02.utoledo.edu> <1991May16.210459.11425@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 May 1991 19:13:28 GMT
Lines: 58

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'."
