[Crosspost] Initiative: Commodore wikibook
Stealth
for readers in all the newsgroups listed.
While randomly searching Wikipedia and its sister projects, I noticed
that, while Wikipedia itself has a moderate amount of information on
Commodore computers, expansions, drives and such, its side-sites such as
Wikibooks contain little that would be helpful to people new to the C=
universe. The links on the 'pedia itself are numerous, however, most of
them refer to sites that are game-related, which doesn't quite do the
systems justice.
The key problem I'm trying to address here is two-fold. One is the
general lack of both hardware and software resources for the Commodore.
While there are literally dozens of sites out there, a good percentage
just keeps repeating the same old system specifications. Naturally,
there are sites that contain truly unique information, like collections
of C=Hacking issues, libraries of VIC-II glitch exploits and (here I go
again...) dual-SID schematics. The other side of the problem is that
there isn't a master index for all the unique information out there.
Some of it pre-dates the internet. While it doesn't lose any of its
usefulness, might've lost some legibility either due to the fact
hardware schematics had been scanned at lower resolutions or it's
contained in ASCII art. That would indeed call for some restoration into
newer graphic and textual formats. On the other hand, there are several
sites which contain saved newsgroup posts and threads which shed light
on some of the darker aspects of the computers or accessories.
Now, Wikipedia (or, in my proposal here, Wikibooks) is de facto
considered the main hub of the internet knowledge that's contained in a
well-formatted, easy-to read layout. Wikibooks can, like any other, be
divided into sections, subsections and articles, naturally, but with the
added bonus of being able to hyperlink to any other related area inside
the same book, or to any available page on the internet, for that
matter. The wealth of C= information could find itself a home in there,
as there is plenty of space to create a virtual bookshelf of Commodore
material, which'd be ready for use for any user, old or new.
Having spent the last 8 years C64-less (as I had to sell it), I found
myself at a great loss when I discovered there is so much more to the
C64 than games, GEOS and Simon's Basic. So in a way, this is my plea for
help from the community, but one from which the community as a whole
could benefit as well. Granted, I wouldn't be of much help, as I can
barely remember the proper way to format a floppy under C64's BASIC.
But, I would be willing to kickstart the project, help with restoring
schematics into PNG or other suitable graphic format or just perform
spell-checking and grammar correction. I wouldn't have suggested this if
I couldn't find a way to help along with the project.
Thank you for the time and effort in reading this.
Jim Brain
hosting (and I think the Wikipedia code is OSS, no?), but it'll be a bit
before I can upload all the saved content I have.
Jim
--
Jim Brain, Brain Innovations
br...@jbrain.com http://www.jbrain.com
Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times!
la...@portcommodore.com
add to a Commodore (or 8-bit in general) Wiki.
Quick check... Wikipedia uses MediaWiki which is OSS, from
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki - looks like standard stuff to
host, Apache, PHP (with sessions enabled) and MySQL.
Only thought on that is that you should pretest the wiki for alternate
ouput as vanilla text/HTML - for character terminal based access;
wouldn't want the 8-bit on-line friends not able to access it. Many
use CSS layouts or tables.
Larry
Stealth
> Only thought on that is that you should pretest the wiki for alternate
> ouput as vanilla text/HTML - for character terminal based access;
> wouldn't want the 8-bit on-line friends not able to access it. Many
> use CSS layouts or tables.
As far as I know, standard Wikipedia has a "printable version" option.
Given a bit of PHP knowledge it could be programmed to allow for one
version of the pages (with all the bells and whistles) for PCs and
another (simpler, with PETSCII encoding) for 8-bit viewers. I don't
really know how well ASCII/UTF/ISO-to-PETSCII conversion works with
8-bit browsers, but if it's possible then it's just a matter of using
one layout for 8-bit machines and another for newer ones.
Rick Balkins
"Stealth" <protostealth@*spamblocker*hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dhe5g5$5cr$1...@ss405.t-com.hr...
Sounds good. A little bit of intellegent formatting - you can set it up for
graphical bells & whistles and an ASCII text version and a PETSCII version
(pre-converted over and carefully adjusted and worked over to proper
Commodore format without loosing context.
Let's not forget the CML format as an option. (Commodore Markup Language)
PHP should be able to be pre-processed and leave just the CML. Just like you
can have mixed PHP and HTML in a .php as well as scripts. As all non-PHP
syntax would be left upto the client-side to handle just like javascript. So
CML should be able to be embedded in a PHP file. All we need is a good CML
browser on a Commodore and possibly a plugin for a web-browser to support
CML. (Commodore Markup Language).
NOTE: Don't confuse it with another language/script that goes by the letters
CML that is also somewhat common on web-browsers. This would be an
interesting concept so lets just have some thoughts on it.
commie
personally am unfamiliar with. However, wikispaces has worked quite
well for my other projects..
- Bo
Stealth
I've scanned through it and it seems like a decent enough place to set a
Wiki up. The reason I suggested Wikibooks is because I've been a
Wikipedia member and editor for a while now and I know just how easy it
is to open a new 'book' and start adding and sorting articles. Then
again, any Wiki would work just as well, but we can always synchronize
two or more Wikis and make an effective mirror of it.
Alternately, we could use a private Wiki for the C=ML version, like Rick
Balkins suggested above, Wikispaces for the HTML/PNG version and
Wikibooks as a backup mirror, or vice versa.
Stealth
the legal side of this.
For the introductory articles of the wikibooks, copying what is
originally in the user manual would be among the best of our sorces
since the instructions, definitions and explanations in there are
relatively easy to understand even for international users whose English
isn't exactly top-notch. However, what worries me a bit is if we'd be
allowed to literally copy-paste the material within. For instance, while
scanning through the funet.fi FTP, I downloaded three pages of the
original manual (I think that's it anyway) that deal with the IC pinouts
and frequency ranges of certain CBM audio chips. Just because it's on an
FTP, of course, doesn't neccessarily mean it's freeware. So, how can
this get resolved?
la...@portcommodore.com
A) you get permission from the initial author to reprint the material.
B) you write your own version of the information on the material (the
copyright is on the exact wording, image or performance not the idea or
concept.)
C) if you do see something that is obvioulsy pasted without any mention
of permissions you remove it from the Wiki Page (maybe replace it with
a reference to the copyrighted works). And hope soneone get the hint
not to copy and paste fron stuff he didn't write.
Stealth
> A) you get permission from the initial author to reprint the material.
> B) you write your own version of the information on the material (the
> copyright is on the exact wording, image or performance not the idea
> or concept.)
> C) if you do see something that is obvioulsy pasted without any
> mention of permissions you remove it from the Wiki Page (maybe
> replace it with a reference to the copyrighted works). And hope
> soneone get the hint not to copy and paste fron stuff he didn't write.
Very well, then. Time to dig into the book scans and do my own art and
articles. Thanks for the clarification.
agi...@netscape.net
la...@portcommodore.com wrote:
> A) you get permission from the initial author to reprint the material.
For corporate authorship, that would be the original copyright holder
unless the copyright have reverted to the personal author.
This is likely to be either Tulip or the people who have done the DTV,
unless someone obtained ownership of the copyright on the PRG before
all residual rights were acquired by Tulip. The latter (DTV makers)
have every financial incentive to allow the PRG to be distributed as
widely and freely as possible (zero cost to them, any sales of DTV
units for hacking is revenue moving toward profit, NPV guaranteed to be
positive). Tulip has less direct incentive, but if they want to get a
free ride off nostalgia, there is no reason they should stand in the
way.
James @ cbm264
Yeahronimo. There is no logical reason for Tulip to keep chip pinouts,
datasheets, etc. under copyright protection if they cannot source new
chips for these materials. Yeahronimo, logically, would be the one to
benefit from the DTV's name exposure, so permission to reprint should
first be sought from them.
And under fair use laws, if I have legitimately purchased something, I
am entitled to documentation as to how to take advantage of its
features. If the current owners cannot provide this, then they can't
stop others from providing it, be it used or photocopied.
And as someone else has pointed out, one should not expect to scan in a
table or illustration and claim it as their own. One may provide
excerpts and provide proper attribution (as Google is doing with books
now), or one may design their own that has the same information but a
different wording and visual aspect. (This is how Howard W. Sams & Co
has profited over the years, by providing wiring diagrams and technical
sheets that are superior to the original manufacturers' documentation.
And let's not get started on "universal" television remote controls!)
James
www.cbm264.com
agi...@netscape.net
James @ cbm264 wrote:
> Let's keep in mind that Tulip has sold the Commodore trademark to
> Yeahronimo. There is no logical reason for Tulip to keep chip pinouts,
> datasheets, etc. under copyright protection if they cannot source new
> chips for these materials. Yeahronimo, logically, would be the one to
> benefit from the DTV's name exposure, so permission to reprint should
> first be sought from them.
Yeah lets keep it in mind (note to self, put in mind -- I only check
into the C64 scene once in a while, so I am probably behind).
But also bear in mind that its about the legal owner, and logic only
sometimes has anything to do with legal ownership. Copyright could
have taken a detour at anytime.
And of course there were third party reference guides that may be as
useful or more so, and if the copyright owners can be contacted that
may be easier than tracing the convoluted path of CBM's IP.
> And under fair use laws, if I have legitimately purchased something, I
> am entitled to documentation as to how to take advantage of its
> features. If the current owners cannot provide this, then they can't
> stop others from providing it, be it used or photocopied.
Also be careful that various countries have different interpretations
of fair use, and the major IP revenue earners are always trying to trim
it back. For example, here in Australia copying a disk or CD to make a
back up copy is not fair use, even if you ONLY use it as a backup and
you retain the original, without using the two at the same time.
> And as someone else has pointed out, one should not expect to scan in a
> table or illustration and claim it as their own. One may provide
> excerpts and provide proper attribution (as Google is doing with books
> now), or one may design their own that has the same information but a
> different wording and visual aspect. (This is how Howard W. Sams & Co
> has profited over the years, by providing wiring diagrams and technical
> sheets that are superior to the original manufacturers' documentation.
> And let's not get started on "universal" television remote controls!)
Limited excerpts are fair use, but its always safer to paraphrase than
to quote (and you should STILL attribute, so people know the original
source).
James @ cbm264
so is the copyright protection. View any P2P or torrent site in Sweden
and you'll see what I mean.
I did some research into Commodore's US copyrights this morning. I
tried last night but the US Copyright site was giving errors....
anyway, someof the Commodore manuals are copyrighted by Commodore
Business Machines, and some by Commodore Capital. CBM's ROM copyrights
were transferred to Tulip, but the manuals don't show any transfer.
Commodore Capital's copyrights don't show a transfer to another party.
The only reason that I bring this up is that Tulip can only enforce
copyrights that they have received by purchasing the remnants of
Commodore. Obviously they received the 8-bit platform's ROM rights, but
there is no evidence that they ever got the rights to the manuals. And
Commodore Capital, the Bahamas-based holding company, is a different
legal entity than Commodore Business Machines.
I suspect that Irving Gould actually holds some of the copyrights
though his various holding companies, and really could care less if
someone were to post online versions.... but that's just my opinion.
James
www.cbm264.com
Marc Walters
news:1128197476....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> I suspect that Irving Gould actually holds some of the copyrights
Or his estate does. Didn't Mr Gould die about 9 years ago?
Marc Walters
Lance Lyon
"Marc Walters" <dd...@au.net.hunterlink> wrote in message
news:JHR%e.2461$96.1...@nasal.pacific.net.au...
Damn! shame it wasn't Medhi Ali, woulda been there to dance on *his* grave!
cheers,
Lance
--
// http://landover.no-ip.com/cbm.html
Commodore 8 Bit Site Index //
---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0539-4, 10/02/2005
Tested on: 10/3/2005 10:57:43 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
Rick Balkins
<la...@portcommodore.com> wrote in message
news:1128114818.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Stealth wrote:
>> To slightly divert from the technicalities, I'd like to ask a bit about
>> the legal side of this.
>>
>> For the introductory articles of the wikibooks, copying what is
>> originally in the user manual would be among the best of our sorces
>> since the instructions, definitions and explanations in there are
>> relatively easy to understand even for international users whose English
>> isn't exactly top-notch. However, what worries me a bit is if we'd be
>> allowed to literally copy-paste the material within. For instance, while
>> scanning through the funet.fi FTP, I downloaded three pages of the
>> original manual (I think that's it anyway) that deal with the IC pinouts
>> and frequency ranges of certain CBM audio chips. Just because it's on an
>> FTP, of course, doesn't neccessarily mean it's freeware. So, how can
>> this get resolved?
> How to resolve this:
>
> A) you get permission from the initial author to reprint the material.
In the case of works for hire such as the Commodore Users Manual - YOU can
NOT just ask the author because it is part of the publication firm
(Commodore Publications - a department of Commodore Business Machines).
Essentially, you will have to talk to Commodore International B.V.
(Yeahronimo) because those rights would be logically passed through as it is
among the wide range of rights pertaining to Commodore minus Amiga.
> B) you write your own version of the information on the material (the
> copyright is on the exact wording, image or performance not the idea or
> concept.)
That will do !!!!
> C) if you do see something that is obvioulsy pasted without any mention
> of permissions you remove it from the Wiki Page (maybe replace it with
> a reference to the copyrighted works). And hope soneone get the hint
> not to copy and paste fron stuff he didn't write.
D) Take ANY PD sources and implement it (acknowledge to original author, it
is just respectful and fair).
Rick Balkins
<agi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1128134832.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> la...@portcommodore.com wrote:
>> A) you get permission from the initial author to reprint the material.
>
> For corporate authorship, that would be the original copyright holder
> unless the copyright have reverted to the personal author.
Corporate works are likely not reverted to the personal author(s) but who
knows.
Contact Yeahronimo Media Ventures (Commodore International B.V.) about it.
Yeahronimo is purchasing ALL of the Commodore rights owned by Tulip. All of
the non-Amiga Commodore rights that wasn't dead was owned by Escom AG was
divested into a company called Commodore IP B.V. which was acquired by Tulip
and is being sold or sold to Yeahronimo Media Ventures. Though it is unclear
as for how much of the rights as the US Patents & Trademarks Office hasn't
been updated all that much on the assignee transfers.
> This is likely to be either Tulip or the people who have done the DTV,
The people who done the DTV has NO ownership of ANY of the original
Commodore rights.
(Except for software titles). The hardware designer - Jeri Ellsworth rights
simply pertain to the FPGA C-One cores and hardware design and the DTV ASIC
core (which may in some way be ultimately owned by Commodore International
B.V. and/or Mammoth Toys. Exact details, unknown.
> unless someone obtained ownership of the copyright on the PRG before
> all residual rights were acquired by Tulip. The latter (DTV makers)
> have every financial incentive to allow the PRG to be distributed as
> widely and freely as possible (zero cost to them, any sales of DTV
> units for hacking is revenue moving toward profit, NPV guaranteed to be
> positive). Tulip has less direct incentive, but if they want to get a
> free ride off nostalgia, there is no reason they should stand in the
> way.
The DTV maker = Jeri Ellsworth. Mammoth Toys, manufacturer. Commodore
International B.V. - Trademarks and Copyright holder (of the Kernal & BASIC
ROMs) and perhaps the technology rights of the DTV itself. Ironstone
Partners - unsure but involved in the software titles collection and of
course the individual software copyright holders such as Hewson whom still
holds the rights and company trademark and name.
As for Jeri's ownership rights or the details of such is unclear. Jeri has
some contractual element and permission of usage is unclear and to what
detail though Commodore may very well hold the primary on it.
Robert Bernardo
> The hardware designer - Jeri Ellsworth rights
> simply pertain to the FPGA C-One cores and hardware design and the DTV ASIC
> core (which may in some way be ultimately owned by Commodore International
> B.V. and/or Mammoth Toys.
Uh, Rick, how did you ascertain this? Have you spoken to Jeri
about it?
> As for Jeri's ownership rights or the details of such is unclear. Jeri has
> some contractual element and permission of usage is unclear and to what
> detail though Commodore may very well hold the primary on it.
Uh, you state the above but then state that you don't know
(i.e., unclear).
Truly,
Robert Bernardo
Fresno Commodore User Group
http://videocam.net.au/fcug
Rick Balkins
"Robert Bernardo" <rber...@iglou.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.61.0510040307580.2377@shell1...
> On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Rick Balkins wrote:
>
>> The hardware designer - Jeri Ellsworth rights
>> simply pertain to the FPGA C-One cores and hardware design and the DTV
>> ASIC
>> core (which may in some way be ultimately owned by Commodore
>> International
>> B.V. and/or Mammoth Toys.
>
> Uh, Rick, how did you ascertain this? Have you spoken to Jeri about it?
Well, lets see - the Commodore BASIC v2 in the Commodore and the DOS and
Kernal is (c) 1982 by Commodore Business Machines. All of those rights went
to ESCOM AG including trademarks and patents as with EVERYTHING relating to
the entire intellectual properties of Commodore International Ltd. (the
WHOLE Commodore corporation)
Later, ESCOM seperated both Commodore and Amiga rights into individual
subsidiaries as part of corporate reorganizationing. As you are familiar
with the Amiga subsidiary of Escom with Petro. There was another subsidiary
which was more a IP holdings company called Commodore IP B.V.. Ultimately
that was established in the Netherlands and divested/sold to Tulip Computers
company. Then eventually renamed Commodore International B.V. which again
was part of Tulip for awhile. The Commodore IP B.V. was a IP holding company
which held all the rights to Commodore (except the Amiga rights which was
already by then part of the Amiga subsidiary of Escom and then sold to
Gateway, ect.) FAST forward -> now Commodore International B.V. (formerly
Commodore IP B.V.) is now a subsidiary of Yeahronimo.
The rights pertaining to Commodore - I have more specifics about.
You do have to know a little of law. The law is a bit automatic - ALL
derivitive works
that are not substantially different then the original is AUTOMATICALLY
owned by Commodore.
Of course, don't mix up license rights and ownership rights. They are TWO
DIFFERENT things.
As for the DTV itself - you REALLY have to look at things piece by piece.
One aspect at a time. Different companies own rights to different aspects to
DTV.
So lets break it down:
------------------------------------------------
DTV hardware (ASIC): not entirely 100% clear. It is clear that the primary
ASIC work is done by Jeri Ellsworth under contract. As for the full details.
We might have to break this down further and not just the ASIC code. The
ASIC chip itself is owned by the ASIC manufacturer. The ASIC code is
assumingly owned by Jeri Ellsworth or the contracting company.
Now lets go to the software side:
BASIC & Kernal is clearly owned by Commodore.
the Menu: I suppose Ironstone but unsure exactly.
the Game Titles: Owned by the individual copyright holders.
(Hewson games owned by Hewson)
>> As for Jeri's ownership rights or the details of such is unclear. Jeri
>> has
>> some contractual element and permission of usage is unclear and to what
>> detail though Commodore may very well hold the primary on it.
>
> Uh, you state the above but then state that you don't know (i.e.,
> unclear).
There was no clear and detailed statements but I would assume the primary
rights to the ASIC core is owned by Jeri but when you look at the DTV as a
whole with all the stuff - then you realize how many rights are involved for
the entire product.
Robert Bernardo
>> Uh, Rick, how did you ascertain this? Have you spoken to Jeri about it?
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Rick Balkins wrote:
[huge snip]
> There was no clear and detailed statements but I would assume the primary
> rights to the ASIC core is owned by Jeri but when you look at the DTV as a
> whole with all the stuff - then you realize how many rights are involved for
> the entire product.
In other words, you did not talk to Jeri and based everything on
assumptions.
agi...@netscape.net
Rick Balkins wrote:
> Corporate works are likely not reverted to the personal author(s) but who
> knows.
That normally only happens when the author has a "keep in print" clause
in their sale of rights, and would not normally happen with technical
writing like the PRG.
> Contact Yeahronimo Media Ventures (Commodore International B.V.) about it.
> Yeahronimo is purchasing ALL of the Commodore rights owned by Tulip. All of
> the non-Amiga Commodore rights that wasn't dead was owned by Escom AG was
> divested into a company called Commodore IP B.V. which was acquired by Tulip
> and is being sold or sold to Yeahronimo Media Ventures. Though it is unclear
> as for how much of the rights as the US Patents & Trademarks Office hasn't
> been updated all that much on the assignee transfers.
It seems most likely that these copyrights just went along for the ride
with all the other IP.
> > This is likely to be either Tulip or the people who have done the DTV,
It would be a bit odd for them to go out of their way to acquire these
rights.
> As for Jeri's ownership rights or the details of such is unclear. Jeri has
> some contractual element and permission of usage is unclear and to what
> detail though Commodore may very well hold the primary on it.
Yeah, its important to keep in mind that its not a matter of what makes
sense, its a matter of whats written in the contract and the history of
precedents of how that have been interpreted. Since the precedents
happen when two sides are fighting and one side convinces a judge, some
really bizarre interpretations can apply even when the fine print seems
to say something else.
Without the fine print in view its all just speculation. But
Yeahronimo Media Ventures sounds like the natural place to start.
Six/Style
> Without the fine print in view its all just speculation. But
> Yeahronimo Media Ventures sounds like the natural place to start.