Official and LEGAL ways to emulate Apple II?
J. Random Luser
to continue to have Apple II software available for staff and
students. (Yes, even now, some schools are STILL holding onto their
15-20 year old Apple II hardware. Hey, I even have two Digicard
networks running yet.)
Even though most of the word processing and business software is
horribly out of date, the "drill and practice" type games for learning
math, typing, and reading have not lost their value to elementary
teachers, and the teachers would still like to have access to the
software.
However, it is generally not feasible to continue using Apple II
hardware. The hardware takes up space that could be better used by
even a "low-end" $500 1gHz system -- with more than 1000 times the
speed and capability of the original Apple IIe.
Additionally, I have pressure from the school superintendent to get
rid of the Apples simply for "image" reasons. We want to appear to the
public to be current and up-to-date, and to have an attractive image
to potential new teaching staff. How can you do that when you've got
totally obsolete Apple II hardware (some of it now nearly 20 years
old) sitting in classrooms?
At this point, emulation seems to be the proper path to go. I have
used the Janzer-Schmidt version of AppleWin and like it a lot. I have
also converted some 150 old MECC floppies into disk images, put them
on a Netware server, and even have them appearing in an individual
computer's Start Menu, direct from the server. Just go to the Start
menu, select the program, and it instantly loads in AppleWin.
Everything is working great!
Except there is one problem. I cannot determine how we can officially
and legally use the Apple IIe ROM with the emulator. I do not want to
do this "on the sly". I want to be able to do this in a fully public
manner that can be shared with other schools and is looked on by Apple
as being acceptable to them. We are after all a public institution and
as such we should be doing things in a fully legal and proper manner.
I do not want to try and do this "secretly" and then later have all
the effort wasted if Apple learns what's going on and tries to sue or
issue "cease and desist" letters to schools, telling them to stop
using "unlicensed" Apple II emulation in schools.
So far, the fully proper route of getting a license to the ROM-code
from Apple has failed. I hunted around, calling various Apple
corporate numbers, until I found a special email address for the
"Intellectual Property Law" department at Apple.
I sent them a number of anonymous email requests for information on
how to get a free or low-cost license for the Apple IIe ROM-code for
K-12 schol use, and got this response back from one of their lawyers:
> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:54:05 -0700
> Subject: Re: status update? (Re: Apple II ROM)
>
> Thank you for your correspondence dated Fri, 25 Apr 2003, which has
> been forwarded to me for response.
>
> At this time Apple has no interest in releasing Apple II ROM code
> for additional use. While we appreciate your interest and support
> of Apple, we ask that you respect this policy.
>
> Thank you for contacting Apple with your question.
>
> Very truly yours,
> APPLE COMPUTER, INC.
>
> Mark Aaker
> Attorney
> Apple Law Department
So they won't do licensing directly. Is there any "indirect" licensing
available? Are there any emulators out there that I can buy that
include the ROM-code and are officially blessed by Apple to include
the ROM-code with their emulator?
I have also heard a claim that you can emulate as long as you own the
original machine you are emulating. I have no idea if this is true, or
if it's just a made-up concept that has no real legal bearing. Has
this ever been tested in court? (Can you point me to any web info
relating to this?)
How far does this concept go? Must you retain a fully functional
machine, or is it enough to just own the ROMs from the machine? Could
I pull the ROMs, put them in electrostatic-safe foam, and discard the
rest of the computer?
Must you own the exact machine, or is it okay to have the ROMs from a
newer generation of the computer line and emulate an older version? At
this school I am trying to upgrade to emulation, we have 25 Apple IIgs
computers in storage. But I want to use AppleWin, not a IIgs emulator.
Is it okay to keep the IIgs ROMs around as legal "proof" I can use the
IIe emulator?
Another question is how the costs of "past purchases" factors into
this. The school where I work has likely bought more than a hundred
Apple IIe/IIgs computers in years past. Even if we have now discarded
the actual hardware, it seems like all that money spent should be able
to count for something now.
In my opinion, we should still be able to use an emulated Apple IIe
even if we discarded the hardware, because we already paid Apple once
to use the ROM in that hardware. We shouldn't need to pay them again
to be able to emulate up to as many Apple II computers as we had
originally purchased some 10-20 years ago.
If anyone knows the real, legal facts surrounding these issues, I'd
appreciate some help.
Bryan Villados
emulator. If the people on eBay would figure it out by now, they could
probably pull the ROMs off the logic boards and sell just the ROMs to save
on shipping. I would also imagine that owning a IIe emulation card for the
Mac LC series would satisfy the same legal requirements.
--- Bryan
"J. Random Luser" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:q9jebv8ngd7d209r6...@4ax.com...
Tim Haynes
can make a backup copy of any disc for backup purposes without breaching
copyright, I would say that you can pull an image of each of your Apple II's
ROMs, and use them as "backup" copies on the Windows machines. To be on
your best legal ground, you should pull an image of each ROM and use each
image only once on a Windows machine. If you have 20 Apples, then you would
have 20 ROM images and 20 Windows machines using them. When the Apple IIs
are "liquidated", pull the ROM chips and keep them in your desk (since if
you sold them, you would have to delete your ROM image files to be all nice
and legal).
Cheers
Tim
"J. Random Luser" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:q9jebv8ngd7d209r6...@4ax.com...
Rob
Perhaps some of the Apple ][ emulators use a similar approach, and have
developed legal equivalents of the Apple][ ROMs.
--
Rob
"Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity"
Matthew Russotto
Bryan Villados <new...@macgeek.org> wrote:
>Legally, all you'd need are the ROMs off the logic board to use on an
>emulator. If the people on eBay would figure it out by now, they could
>probably pull the ROMs off the logic boards and sell just the ROMs to save
>on shipping. I would also imagine that owning a IIe emulation card for the
>Mac LC series would satisfy the same legal requirements.
ROM images for the ][+ are included on every DOS 3.3 System Master
disk (and one of the 3.2. master disks), so owning one of those should
make it legal too.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Rob
> In article <JZKta.65813$Ye6.2...@twister.socal.rr.com>, Bryan
> Villados <new...@macgeek.org> wrote:
>
>> Legally, all you'd need are the ROMs off the logic board to use on
>> an emulator. If the people on eBay would figure it out by now, they
>> could probably pull the ROMs off the logic boards and sell just
>> the ROMs to save on shipping. I would also imagine that owning a
>> IIe emulation card for the Mac LC series would satisfy the same
>> legal requirements.
>
>
> ROM images for the ][+ are included on every DOS 3.3 System Master
> disk (and one of the 3.2. master disks), so owning one of those
> should make it legal too.
>
check. I only mention it because the concern is whether is is very
strictly permitted. There were also Apple][ cards for ISA PC's which
must have come with some kind of OS or ROM, which might be freely
availible. You might check one of the emulator newsgroups
comp.emulators.apple2, alt.emulators.ibmpc.apple2 they may have more
specific information.
Dosius
> to continue to have Apple II software available for staff and
> students. (Yes, even now, some schools are STILL holding onto their
> 15-20 year old Apple II hardware. Hey, I even have two Digicard
> networks running yet.)
*g*
> Even though most of the word processing and business software is
> horribly out of date, the "drill and practice" type games for learning
> math, typing, and reading have not lost their value to elementary
> teachers, and the teachers would still like to have access to the
> software.
>
> However, it is generally not feasible to continue using Apple II
> hardware. The hardware takes up space that could be better used by
> even a "low-end" $500 1gHz system -- with more than 1000 times the
> speed and capability of the original Apple IIe.
*sigh* I know...
> Additionally, I have pressure from the school superintendent to get
> rid of the Apples simply for "image" reasons. We want to appear to the
> public to be current and up-to-date, and to have an attractive image
> to potential new teaching staff. How can you do that when you've got
> totally obsolete Apple II hardware (some of it now nearly 20 years
> old) sitting in classrooms?
>
> At this point, emulation seems to be the proper path to go. I have
> used the Janzer-Schmidt version of AppleWin and like it a lot. I have
> also converted some 150 old MECC floppies into disk images, put them
> on a Netware server, and even have them appearing in an individual
> computer's Start Menu, direct from the server. Just go to the Start
> menu, select the program, and it instantly loads in AppleWin.
> Everything is working great!
*g*
> Except there is one problem. I cannot determine how we can officially
> and legally use the Apple IIe ROM with the emulator. I do not want to
> do this "on the sly". I want to be able to do this in a fully public
> manner that can be shared with other schools and is looked on by Apple
> as being acceptable to them. We are after all a public institution and
> as such we should be doing things in a fully legal and proper manner.
I agree fully with that.
> I do not want to try and do this "secretly" and then later have all
> the effort wasted if Apple learns what's going on and tries to sue or
> issue "cease and desist" letters to schools, telling them to stop
> using "unlicensed" Apple II emulation in schools.
>
> So far, the fully proper route of getting a license to the ROM-code
> from Apple has failed. I hunted around, calling various Apple
> corporate numbers, until I found a special email address for the
> "Intellectual Property Law" department at Apple.
>
> I sent them a number of anonymous email requests for information on
> how to get a free or low-cost license for the Apple IIe ROM-code for
> K-12 schol use, and got this response back from one of their lawyers:
>
> > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:54:05 -0700
> > Subject: Re: status update? (Re: Apple II ROM)
> >
> > Thank you for your correspondence dated Fri, 25 Apr 2003, which has
> > been forwarded to me for response.
> >
> > At this time Apple has no interest in releasing Apple II ROM code
> > for additional use. While we appreciate your interest and support
> > of Apple, we ask that you respect this policy.
> >
> > Thank you for contacting Apple with your question.
> >
> > Very truly yours,
> > APPLE COMPUTER, INC.
> >
> > Mark Aaker
> > Attorney
> > Apple Law Department
Well, now we have the legal word from Apple themselves (hello, other
emu authors?!)
> So they won't do licensing directly. Is there any "indirect" licensing
> available? Are there any emulators out there that I can buy that
> include the ROM-code and are officially blessed by Apple to include
> the ROM-code with their emulator?
There's something else, but it's got compatibility problems of its
own. A program called "SimSystem IIe", which runs under DOS, but on
many newer systems it will crash upon exiting, and it has MAJOR
problems running under Windows. It uses a clean-room implementation
of the ROM, as PC clones use a clean-room implementation of IBM's ROM.
I would like to see emulation of this clean-room ROM code under other
emulators (AppleWin and Dapple ][, primarily), but unless someone
figures out how to load and bank it, it won't happen :(
There is the possibility that a "leet" 6502 hacker, or a group of
them, could perhaps clone the ROM themselves. Takers?
> I have also heard a claim that you can emulate as long as you own the
> original machine you are emulating. I have no idea if this is true, or
> if it's just a made-up concept that has no real legal bearing. Has
> this ever been tested in court? (Can you point me to any web info
> relating to this?)
The basis for this claim (I doubt it, but I practice it myself - I
emulate a //e but I actually have a real live Platinum //e at home) is
the idea of keeping a "backup copy" of software you own. I would be
very cautious about this in your case, as it is not "for personal
use", so it might not fall under the "fair use" clause of copyright
law.
> How far does this concept go? Must you retain a fully functional
> machine, or is it enough to just own the ROMs from the machine? Could
> I pull the ROMs, put them in electrostatic-safe foam, and discard the
> rest of the computer?
>
> Must you own the exact machine, or is it okay to have the ROMs from a
> newer generation of the computer line and emulate an older version? At
> this school I am trying to upgrade to emulation, we have 25 Apple IIgs
> computers in storage. But I want to use AppleWin, not a IIgs emulator.
> Is it okay to keep the IIgs ROMs around as legal "proof" I can use the
> IIe emulator?
I don't think so. (But I'll say that KEGS32 is a good IIgs emulator
if that's what you need)
> Another question is how the costs of "past purchases" factors into
> this. The school where I work has likely bought more than a hundred
> Apple IIe/IIgs computers in years past. Even if we have now discarded
> the actual hardware, it seems like all that money spent should be able
> to count for something now.
*sigh* Agreed there...
> In my opinion, we should still be able to use an emulated Apple IIe
> even if we discarded the hardware, because we already paid Apple once
> to use the ROM in that hardware. We shouldn't need to pay them again
> to be able to emulate up to as many Apple II computers as we had
> originally purchased some 10-20 years ago.
>
> If anyone knows the real, legal facts surrounding these issues, I'd
> appreciate some help.
I am sorry that I could not help you any more than I have. (Psst,
anyone want to help clone the ROMs legally?)
-uso.
Paul Grammens
> original machine you are emulating. I have no idea if this is true, or
> if it's just a made-up concept that has no real legal bearing. Has
> this ever been tested in court? (Can you point me to any web info
> relating to this?)
>
> How far does this concept go? Must you retain a fully functional
> machine, or is it enough to just own the ROMs from the machine? Could
> I pull the ROMs, put them in electrostatic-safe foam, and discard the
> rest of the computer?
>
> Must you own the exact machine, or is it okay to have the ROMs from a
> newer generation of the computer line and emulate an older version? At
> this school I am trying to upgrade to emulation, we have 25 Apple IIgs
> computers in storage. But I want to use AppleWin, not a IIgs emulator.
> Is it okay to keep the IIgs ROMs around as legal "proof" I can use the
> IIe emulator?
>
It does seem like all you need are the ROMs. Here is a case where a third
party created a laptop called the Outbound which used the ROMs from a Mac
Plus or SE. Here is the manual. In "Installation Summary" it tells how to
remove the ROM chips from the Plus and install them in the Outbound. Ergo,
all you need is a set of ROMs for each emulator.
http://www.applefritter.com/macclones/outbound/laptop/installation/index.htm
l
I do believe you need the same type of ROMs you are using in the emulator,
so IIgs ROMs might not cut it. Surely you could easily and cheaply aquire
enough ROMs though. Ask for donations, or find someone with a pile of
junked IIe's who will pull and mail you the ROMs.
Very interesting problem, and I wish you success.
-Paul
Dosius
> Some Apple][ clones used legal ROM's ( the Laser 128 comes to mind ).
> Perhaps some of the Apple ][ emulators use a similar approach, and have
> developed legal equivalents of the Apple][ ROMs.
SimSystem IIe, but it has compatibility issues with all versions of
Windows and with certain machines' hardware.
I believe the copyright on the Laser 128 ROM was Central Point
Software, and that they are now owned by Symantec (!).
I would like to issue a call for anyone who knows how:
I am the author of Dapple ][ (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dapple),
which runs under DOS, has no issues under Windows 98SE and is reported
to work under ME (and claims or the program working on XP have been
reported). I am currently working on porting the emulator to Windows
95+/NT/2K/XP.
The issue is that ROM code cannot be legally distributed with the
emulators (see earlier in the thread for word from the horse's mouth).
For small things like the mouse driver this is no issue.
Unfortunately, what we need is a clone of the Apple //e or //c
firmware. I can alter my emulator to suit unique banking mechanisms
which could be required by such a ROM image.
There is a nice development environment at http://www.cc65.org/ which
could perhaps be used to build this code. It includes a C compiler,
assembler and linker targeting the 6502 and 65C02.
Ideally, the "Emu2" system should be relatively compatible with the
installed base of Apple ][ software; a very large archive is available
for testing. Those of you who might be interested perhaps already
know where it is; because of the legality I will not provide the
address here, but will refer to it simply as "Asimov".
Dapple ]['s hardware emulation at this time is a parallel port (1), a
ProDOS block device (5), a mouse (2) and a dual Disk ][ controller
(6).
The ideal method for going about this would be for one hacker or group
of hackers (I use this in the Jargon sense, http://catb.org/jargon/)
to create a full listing of entry points (switches in the
memory-mapped I/O area are documented in Dapple ]['s MEMORY.C and
elsewhere), and a second hacker or group of hackers to implement code,
without reference to an actual ROM, that would imitate the behavior
determined by the first group. As I have discussed elsewhere, this is
the method by which the first legal IBM PC clones were developed. The
advantage is that since both Dapple ][ and AppleWin have source code
available, the emulators can be made to fit the ROMs, and we do not
have to bank in the exact same manner as other systems.
If this could be done successfully, I would include the resulting "ROM
image" with my emulator and encourage others to do likewise. We would
finally have a legal ROM for use in emulators.
If anyone is willing to help, please e-mail me at
sysdev%40dosius%2Ezzn%2Ecom.
Thank you.
Steve "Usotsuki" Nickolas
Charles Richmond
>
> I am a tech support person at a K-12 public school, and I would like
> to continue to have Apple II software available for staff and
> students. (Yes, even now, some schools are STILL holding onto their
> 15-20 year old Apple II hardware. Hey, I even have two Digicard
> networks running yet.)
>
> Even though most of the word processing and business software is
> horribly out of date, the "drill and practice" type games for learning
> math, typing, and reading have not lost their value to elementary
> teachers, and the teachers would still like to have access to the
> software.
>
As many have told you in <comp.sys.apple2>, you only need a set
of ROM's from an original machine for *each* emulator that you
are running. I think that you should check this with an intellectual
property rights lawyer first, though.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Rob
>
> SimSystem IIe, but it has compatibility issues with all versions of
> Windows and with certain machines' hardware.
>
> I believe the copyright on the Laser 128 ROM was Central Point
> Software, and that they are now owned by Symantec (!).
>
Interesting.
>
> The issue is that ROM code cannot be legally distributed with the
> emulators (see earlier in the thread for word from the horse's mouth).
> For small things like the mouse driver this is no issue.
> Unfortunately, what we need is a clone of the Apple //e or //c
> firmware. I can alter my emulator to suit unique banking mechanisms
> which could be required by such a ROM image.
>
I wonder, are we're thinking too much in terms of current practice, when
we should be thinking in terms of Apple's practices in 1979.
Software licenses were much simpler and less restrictive then. There may
be no specific restriction on the type of hardware the system software
(which contains ROM images and are presumable covered by the same
license) may be used on. In that case if you have a legal copy of DOS or
ProDOS you could run it on any machine you wanted to, whether it was an
Apple][, Mac or PC, provided you had an adequate environment.
Eric Smith
> So far, the fully proper route of getting a license to the ROM-code
> from Apple has failed. I hunted around, calling various Apple
> corporate numbers, until I found a special email address for the
> "Intellectual Property Law" department at Apple.
>
> I sent them a number of anonymous email requests for information on
> how to get a free or low-cost license for the Apple IIe ROM-code for
> K-12 schol use, and got this response back from one of their lawyers:
> > At this time Apple has no interest in releasing Apple II ROM code
> > for additional use. While we appreciate your interest and support
> > of Apple, we ask that you respect this policy.
See whether they'll sell you a license for the Apple DOS 3.3 Master
Diskette. They used to license this out for $50/year. If you can
buy a license for that, you're covered, because the II+ ROM code is
contained in the INTBASIC and FPBASIC files on the disk.
Failing that, you can buy DOS 3.3 disks from Syndicomm for $20 each
(with manual). If you buy one of these for each machine that's running
the simulator, you've got a licensed ROM image for each.
Although now that I just read your original message again, it appears
that you want IIe ROM images, and those aren't on the DOS 3.3 Master.
Can you get by with II+ ROM images?
Jeff Thomas
I have the "Roberta Williams Anthology" from Sierra, which features 14
full games covering the evolution of computer adventure games. To play the
first few games, like Mystery House, Apple II disk images and emulator
with ROM are supplied!
I won't be surprised, if the same is true with my "The Ultimate Wizardry
Archives" or "Ultima Collection".
I can foresee that they would be unhappy about running the emulator in
classrooms and/or popular places - similar to those restrictions imposed
on videos.
If you like I can investigate further what the licensing agreement says.
Bill Garber
I found this on Apple's site, concerning usergroup licensing.
http://developer.apple.com/mkt/swl/pdf/UserGroupSDA.pdf
Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprises
http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
J. Random Luser <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:q9jebv8ngd7d209r6...@4ax.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/03
Mark Percival
>I have the "Roberta Williams Anthology" from Sierra, which features 14
>full games covering the evolution of computer adventure games. To play the
>first few games, like Mystery House, Apple II disk images and emulator
>with ROM are supplied!
>
>I won't be surprised, if the same is true with my "The Ultimate Wizardry
>Archives" or "Ultima Collection".
As far at the "Ultima Collection" goes I can tell you that Origin (or
Electronic Arts) used the inferior PC versions of the games. Ultima's
II and III used ugly CGA graphics with no music for Ultima's III, IV
and V. Also these early Ultima's, that were designed for an Intel
8088 running at 4.77 MHz, ran at Warp speed on modern machines. They
would have been better off with the Apple II versions running in an
emualtor.
Mark R. Percival - RTC Host - Syndicomm Online Apple II Forum
"Midweek Madness!" Every Wednesday Night : 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM Pacific Time
Matthew Russotto
Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>As many have told you in <comp.sys.apple2>, you only need a set
>of ROM's from an original machine for *each* emulator that you
>are running. I think that you should check this with an intellectual
>property rights lawyer first, though.
Only check with the lawyer if you want "don't do it" for an answer.
Dosius
> Dosius wrote:
>
> >
> > SimSystem IIe, but it has compatibility issues with all versions of
> > Windows and with certain machines' hardware.
> >
> > I believe the copyright on the Laser 128 ROM was Central Point
> > Software, and that they are now owned by Symantec (!).
> >
>
> Interesting.
>
> >
> > The issue is that ROM code cannot be legally distributed with the
> > emulators (see earlier in the thread for word from the horse's mouth).
> > For small things like the mouse driver this is no issue.
> > Unfortunately, what we need is a clone of the Apple //e or //c
> > firmware. I can alter my emulator to suit unique banking mechanisms
> > which could be required by such a ROM image.
> >
>
> I wonder, are we're thinking too much in terms of current practice, when
> we should be thinking in terms of Apple's practices in 1979.
Cloning the firmware is nothing new; the Compaq PC clone released in
1982 had a clone of the IBM firmware and was legal.
> Software licenses were much simpler and less restrictive then. There may
> be no specific restriction on the type of hardware the system software
> (which contains ROM images and are presumable covered by the same
> license) may be used on. In that case if you have a legal copy of DOS or
> ProDOS you could run it on any machine you wanted to, whether it was an
> Apple][, Mac or PC, provided you had an adequate environment.
Key words there: "adequate environment". The goal is to create this
"adequate environment" so that Apple ][ software can run without the
Apple-copyrighted ROM code. This is one goal the developers of Dapple
][ are working on - allow the use of Dapple ][ with or without ROMs.
I can at least claim fair use for emulating the //e on my PC, but a
lot of other people can't. This is for them.
-uso.
Rob
>
>
> Key words there: "adequate environment". The goal is to create this
> "adequate environment" so that Apple ][ software can run without the
> Apple-copyrighted ROM code.
The adequate environment was only meant to say one which works.
> This is one goal the developers of Dapple
> ][ are working on - allow the use of Dapple ][ with or without ROMs.
> I can at least claim fair use for emulating the //e on my PC, but a
> lot of other people can't. This is for them.
If the rom images for an Apple][+ come on the DOS 3.3 master disk, and
you have a legal copy of the DOD 3.3 master disk, why don't you have the
same right to use those files you do for the system software. I read the
license in the user group PDF and it doesn't restrict the kind of
computer you use the system software on, only that you use it on one
machine at a time and don't reverse engineer it. It seems if you have
enough legal copies of the system disk you are ok at least with these
ROMs. Possible other ROMs are not so lucky.
>
> -uso.
Rob
> In article <3EB834EB...@ev1.net>,
> Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>>As many have told you in <comp.sys.apple2>, you only need a set
>>of ROM's from an original machine for *each* emulator that you
>>are running. I think that you should check this with an intellectual
>>property rights lawyer first, though.
>
>
> Only check with the lawyer if you want "don't do it" for an answer.
>
So right. A lawyer learns early that if you don't take any action they
cannot be responsible.
Ron Maxwell
To "legally" reverse engineer a ROM BIOS one must do the following.
Team A studies every possible function of the ROMs. Every concievable API function, IO Function,
etc... Then write up a document that only specifies the functions the ROMs must perform and in
what order. However, they cannot document the actual code used for performing these functions.
Think of it as a spec sheet if you will. I believe but I am not sure that this team can even
"decompile" the ROMs to make sure they understand how it works but may may not share the
sepcific code with anyone else.
The go-between, usually a laywer, takes the document and gives it to the next team
Team B has to, without having any prior knowledge what-so-ever of the original ROMs, write new
ROMs that meets the specs submitted by Team A.
The virginity test would be something like this.
Have you ever decompiled or attempted to decompile the Apple ROMS? No!
Have you ever examined the Apple ROMS? No!
Were you ever employed by anyone to write programs sepcifically for the Apple
ROM's? No!
Teams A and B must never under any circumstances meet, talk, know each other, live in the same
neighborhood, or breathe the same air. And the go-between must not have anything to do with
either Team A or Team B other than shuttle the document from A to B.
If all goes well you will have a legal "clone: of the Apple II ROMS BIOS and firmware.
That is how COMPAQ and AMI did it back in the days.
Oh yeah, it helps to have a good lawyer documenting all of this.
Ron
Ron Maxwell
To "legally" reverse engineer a ROM BIOS one must do the following.
Team A studies every possible function of the ROMs. Every concievable API function, IO Function,
etc... Then write up a document that only specifies the functions the ROMs must perform and in
what order. However, they cannot document the actual code used for performing these functions.
Think of it as a spec sheet if you will. I believe but I am not sure that this team can even
"decompile" the ROMs to make sure they understand how it works but may may not share the
sepcific code with anyone else.
The go-between, usually a laywer, takes the document and gives it to the next team
Team B has to, without having any prior knowledge what-so-ever of the original ROMs, write new
ROMs that meets the specs submitted by Team A.
The virginity test would be something like this.
Have you ever decompiled or attempted to decompile the Apple ROMS? No!
Have you ever examined the Apple ROMS? No!
Were you ever employed by anyone to write programs sepcifically for the Apple
ROM's? No!
Teams A and B must never under any circumstances meet, talk, know each other, live in the same
neighborhood, or breathe the same air. And the go-between must not have anything to do with
either Team A or Team B other than shuttle the document from A to B.
If all goes well you will have a legal "clone: of the Apple II ROMS BIOS and firmware.
That is how COMPAQ and AMI did it back in the days.
Oh yeah, it helps to have a good lawyer documenting all of this.
Ron
Ron Maxwell
To "legally" reverse engineer a ROM BIOS one must do the following.
Team A studies every possible function of the ROMs. Every concievable API function, IO Function,
etc... Then write up a document that only specifies the functions the ROMs must perform and in
what order. However, they cannot document the actual code used for performing these functions.
Think of it as a spec sheet if you will. I believe but I am not sure that this team can even
"decompile" the ROMs to make sure they understand how it works but may may not share the
sepcific code with anyone else.
The go-between, usually a laywer, takes the document and gives it to the next team
Team B has to, without having any prior knowledge what-so-ever of the original ROMs, write new
ROMs that meets the specs submitted by Team A.
The virginity test would be something like this.
Have you ever decompiled or attempted to decompile the Apple ROMS? No!
Have you ever examined the Apple ROMS? No!
Were you ever employed by anyone to write programs sepcifically for the Apple
ROM's? No!
Teams A and B must never under any circumstances meet, talk, know each other, live in the same
neighborhood, or breathe the same air. And the go-between must not have anything to do with
either Team A or Team B other than shuttle the document from A to B.
If all goes well you will have a legal "clone: of the Apple II ROMS BIOS and firmware.
That is how COMPAQ and AMI did it back in the days.
Oh yeah, it helps to have a good lawyer documenting all of this.
Ron
Ron Maxwell
To "legally" reverse engineer a ROM BIOS one must do the following.
Team A studies every possible function of the ROMs. Every concievable API function, IO Function,
etc... Then write up a document that only specifies the functions the ROMs must perform and in
what order. However, they cannot document the actual code used for performing these functions.
Think of it as a spec sheet if you will. I believe but I am not sure that this team can even
"decompile" the ROMs to make sure they understand how it works but may may not share the
sepcific code with anyone else.
The go-between, usually a laywer, takes the document and gives it to the next team
Team B has to, without having any prior knowledge what-so-ever of the original ROMs, write new
ROMs that meets the specs submitted by Team A.
The virginity test would be something like this.
Have you ever decompiled or attempted to decompile the Apple ROMS? No!
Have you ever examined the Apple ROMS? No!
Were you ever employed by anyone to write programs sepcifically for the Apple
ROM's? No!
Teams A and B must never under any circumstances meet, talk, know each other, live in the same
neighborhood, or breathe the same air. And the go-between must not have anything to do with
either Team A or Team B other than shuttle the document from A to B.
If all goes well you will have a legal "clone: of the Apple II ROMS BIOS and firmware.
That is how COMPAQ and AMI did it back in the days.
Oh yeah, it helps to have a good lawyer documenting all of this.
Ron
Ron Maxwell
To "legally" reverse engineer a ROM BIOS one must do the following.
Team A studies every possible function of the ROMs. Every concievable API function, IO Function,
etc... Then write up a document that only specifies the functions the ROMs must perform.
However, they cannot document the actual code used for performing these functions. Think of it
as a spec sheet if you will. I believe but I am not sure that this team can even "decompile"
the ROMs to make sure they understand how it works but may may not share the sepcific code with
anyone else.
The go-between, usually a laywer, takes the document and gives it to the next team
Team B has to, without having any prior knowledge what-so-ever of the original ROMs, write new
ROMs that meets the specs submitted by Team A.
The virginity test would be something like this.
Have you ever decompiled or attempted to decompile the Apple ROMS? No!
Have you ever examined the Apple ROMS? No!
Were you ever employed by anyone to write programs sepcifically for the Apple
ROM's? No!
Do you know x, y, and z personally ? NO! (x, y, and z ar the names of the people on Team A)
Teams A and B must never under any circumstances meet, talk, know each other, live in the same
neighborhood, or breathe the same air. And the go-between must not have anything to do with
either Team A or Team B other than shuttle the document from A to B.
If all goes well you will have a legal "clone: of the Apple II ROMS BIOS and firmware.
That is how COMPAQ and AMI did it back in the days.
Oh yeah, it helps to have a good lawyer documenting all of this.
Ron
David & Barbara Schmidt
Dosius wrote:
>
> There is the possibility that a "leet" 6502 hacker, or a group of
> them, could perhaps clone the ROM themselves. Takers?
The problem is that Apple published the ROM assembly listings, so *any*
address from $D000-$FFFF is a valid entry point. $FDED is cout, but,
so, to most people is $FDF0. I'd consider any system that doesn't boot
the proper drive with an FAA9G broken.
David S.
--
"Good judgment comes from experience, and experience comes from bad
judgment." --Barry LePatner
Dosius
I agree with that statement. The *original* DOS 3.3 System Master
(8/25/80), as well as "Elementary, My Dear Apple", come with ROMs for
the ][ (Autostart) and ][+, which can be used with Dapple ][ just fine
"as is"; if one has a legal copy of that, there shouldn't be a
problem. But you can't run AppleWorks on that config (yet!).
-uso.
Dosius
-uso.
Bryan Villados
with DOS 3.3, based on what some people are saying, each owner would then
own TWO legal licenses of the ROM???? Even if it's legally correct, I doubt
that's what Apple had in mind.
--- Bryan
"Rob" <rstei...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3EB974B0...@mindspring.com...
Bryan Villados
person has seen the ROM listing at one time or another. When I worked at
Phoenix Technologies back in the late 1980's as a ROM-BIOS engineer, I had
to sign a waver saying I've never ever seen the ROM-BIOS source listing on
an IBM PC. Phoenix Tech was able to legally close the IBM ROM-BIOS because
they used the "clean room/reverse engineering" technique. I was considered a
"clean engineer" at Phoenix Tech.
The steps are:
1) Have a "dirty engineer" read the IBM ROM-BIOS code. Then write or
re-write, in English with no code whatsoever, exactly how each aspect of the
ROM-BIOS functions. For example, crank out 100 pages of written material
explaining exactly how interrupt 15h functions.
2) A clean engineer would then read the documentation, and write the source
code based on what he read. Hopefully the dirty engineer wrote the
documention properly.
3) Test, test, test.
4) If compability is bad, then the whole process repeats itself until
compatibility was at or near 100-percent.
So if a group of Apple hacks got together and cloned the ROMs, it would
probably be difficult not to have any Apple source code slip into the
process. And, if Apple did get around to it and sue the cloners, it would be
difficult to prove in court that the programmers didn't use the Apple ROM
listings directly as inspiration.
--- Bryan
"David & Barbara Schmidt" <davn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:b9eqkg$s...@library2.airnews.net...
Eric Smith
> I seem to a problem with this logic. If you bought an Apple II+, which came
> with DOS 3.3, based on what some people are saying, each owner would then
> own TWO legal licenses of the ROM???? Even if it's legally correct, I doubt
> that's what Apple had in mind.
If Apple didn't have it in mind, they shouldn't have put the ROM image on
the floppy disk, or they shouldn't have sold it.
The fact is that if you buy an Apple II+ and a DOS 3.3 (original), you
now have two legitimate, licensed copies of the ROM code. The same
person owning both items doesn't somehow magically make the license of
one of them less legitmate.
How Apple intended you to use the copy on the DOS 3.3 disk is irrelevant,
due to the doctrine of first sale. The owner of a copyrighted work in
general can't control how you use that work once you purchase it. They
can only use copyright law to prevent you from making original copies,
and they can't even completely prevent that since some copying falls
under "fair use".
Spooky Spook
by IBM.
I believe this process is called Clean Room, where the engineers
working in this group are not suppose to come into contact in any form
of the code that competitor have and is similar to what they were
working.
Extensive and tedious but legal and clean
On Thu, 08 May 2003 01:47:52 GMT, Ron Maxwell
<rmax...@nycpinball.com> wrote:
-*-Cloning firmware was done via "reverse engineering". Both Simple
and Complex at the same time.
-*-To "legally" reverse engineer a ROM BIOS one must do the following.
-*-
-*-Team A studies every possible function of the ROMs. Every
concievable API function, IO Function,
-*-etc... Then write up a document that only specifies the functions
the ROMs must perform and in
-*-what order. However, they cannot document the actual code used for
performing these functions.
-*-Think of it as a spec sheet if you will. I believe but I am not
sure that this team can even
-*-"decompile" the ROMs to make sure they understand how it works but
may may not share the
-*-sepcific code with anyone else.
-*-
-*-The go-between, usually a laywer, takes the document and gives it
to the next team
-*-
-*-Team B has to, without having any prior knowledge what-so-ever of
the original ROMs, write new
-*-ROMs that meets the specs submitted by Team A.
-*-
-*-The virginity test would be something like this.
-*-
-*-Have you ever decompiled or attempted to decompile the Apple ROMS?
No!
-*-Have you ever examined the Apple ROMS? No!
-*-Were you ever employed by anyone to write programs sepcifically for
the Apple
-*-ROM's? No!
-*-
-*-Teams A and B must never under any circumstances meet, talk, know
each other, live in the same
-*-neighborhood, or breathe the same air. And the go-between must not
have anything to do with
-*-either Team A or Team B other than shuttle the document from A to
B.
-*-
-*-If all goes well you will have a legal "clone: of the Apple II ROMS
BIOS and firmware.
-*-
-*-That is how COMPAQ and AMI did it back in the days.
-*-
-*-Oh yeah, it helps to have a good lawyer documenting all of this.
-*-
-*-Ron
-*-
-*-Dosius wrote:
-*-
-*-> Rob <Rstei...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<vbg8tqj...@corp.supernews.com>...
-*-> > Dosius wrote:
-*-> >
-*-> > >
-*-> > > SimSystem IIe, but it has compatibility issues with all
versions of
-*-> > > Windows and with certain machines' hardware.
-*-> > >
-*-> > > I believe the copyright on the Laser 128 ROM was Central
Point
-*-> > > Software, and that they are now owned by Symantec (!).
-*-> > >
-*-> >
-*-> > Interesting.
-*-> >
-*-> > >
-*-> > > The issue is that ROM code cannot be legally distributed with
the
-*-> > > emulators (see earlier in the thread for word from the
horse's mouth).
-*-> > > For small things like the mouse driver this is no issue.
-*-> > > Unfortunately, what we need is a clone of the Apple //e or
//c
-*-> > > firmware. I can alter my emulator to suit unique banking
mechanisms
-*-> > > which could be required by such a ROM image.
-*-> > >
-*-> >
-*-> > I wonder, are we're thinking too much in terms of current
practice, when
-*-> > we should be thinking in terms of Apple's practices in 1979.
-*->
-*-> Cloning the firmware is nothing new; the Compaq PC clone released
in
-*-> 1982 had a clone of the IBM firmware and was legal.
-*->
-*-> > Software licenses were much simpler and less restrictive then.
There may
-*-> > be no specific restriction on the type of hardware the system
software
-*-> > (which contains ROM images and are presumable covered by the
same
-*-> > license) may be used on. In that case if you have a legal copy
of DOS or
-*-> > ProDOS you could run it on any machine you wanted to, whether
it was an
-*-> > Apple][, Mac or PC, provided you had an adequate environment.
-*->
-*-> Key words there: "adequate environment". The goal is to create
this
-*-> "adequate environment" so that Apple ][ software can run without
the
-*-> Apple-copyrighted ROM code. This is one goal the developers of
Dapple
-*-> ][ are working on - allow the use of Dapple ][ with or without
ROMs.
-*-> I can at least claim fair use for emulating the //e on my PC, but
a
-*-> lot of other people can't. This is for them.
-*->
-*-> -uso.
Josiah Ong
a small device that would actually transfer the contents of the actual
ROM to the PC (over a serial port perhaps) just before starting the
emulator. The ROM image could then be removed when the emulator was
exited. By doing it this way, you would kind of be using the actual
ROM.
This device could be made rather inexpensively using a PIC
microcontroller. My guess would be about $20.00 each, maybe cheaper
with effort. Actually, depending on how big the rom is, and how many
address lines, etc, one might be able to make a device that just
basically plugs into the parallel port, without any real electronics
on the device at all. These would be really cheap.
If this method of copying the entire contents to the ROM to the PC,
and then deleting it when done is not completely legal still, then
another solution might still exist. This would need to have the
reader be accessed byte by byte by the emulator, just as the real 6502
would access the real ROM. I think this might just be possible on the
parallel port quickly enough. The emulator would need to be modified
to support this, of course. This should be completely legal, since
the emulator will not run without the device with the ROM chip in it.
David & Barbara Schmidt <davn...@airmail.net> wrote in message news:<b9eqkg$s...@library2.airnews.net>...
Dosius
> One possibly legal solution, athough cumbersome, would be to construct
> a small device that would actually transfer the contents of the actual
> ROM to the PC (over a serial port perhaps) just before starting the
> emulator. The ROM image could then be removed when the emulator was
> exited. By doing it this way, you would kind of be using the actual
> ROM.
>
> This device could be made rather inexpensively using a PIC
> microcontroller. My guess would be about $20.00 each, maybe cheaper
> with effort. Actually, depending on how big the rom is, and how many
> address lines, etc, one might be able to make a device that just
> basically plugs into the parallel port, without any real electronics
> on the device at all. These would be really cheap.
>
> If this method of copying the entire contents to the ROM to the PC,
> and then deleting it when done is not completely legal still, then
> another solution might still exist. This would need to have the
> reader be accessed byte by byte by the emulator, just as the real 6502
> would access the real ROM. I think this might just be possible on the
> parallel port quickly enough. The emulator would need to be modified
> to support this, of course. This should be completely legal, since
> the emulator will not run without the device with the ROM chip in it.
The latter would be better. Or ideally someone could build a PCI card
with an Apple ][ ROM chip on it. Open-source emulators like Dapple ][
and AppleWin could be modded to support something like that without
too much hassle.
Better yet one might be able to create a chip containing a 65C02, a
couple megs of RAM, bank-switching hardware, and various ROMs (the //e
ROM and the Disk ][ ROM at least, possibly a Parallel Interface Card
ROM), and have the emulator be simply a console emulator that drives
the 6502 card (à la the LC Card). This would truly be the ideal
solution, if it could be done. If anyone creates something like that,
I'd be sure to drop it in my Telly Celly and try it out.
-uso.
Michael J. Mahon
>Better yet one might be able to create a chip containing a 65C02, a
>couple megs of RAM, bank-switching hardware, and various ROMs (the //e
>ROM and the Disk ][ ROM at least, possibly a Parallel Interface Card
>ROM), and have the emulator be simply a console emulator that drives
>the 6502 card (à la the LC Card). This would truly be the ideal
>solution, if it could be done. If anyone creates something like that,
>I'd be sure to drop it in my Telly Celly and try it out.
Of course, you know that this was done for the ISA bus--several times.
The TrackStar series of Apple II add-ins for PCs was one of the better
known examples.
But most of them depended on a cloned ROM image, not on actual
Apple ROMs.
And if you think about the fact that the speed of the 65C02 on the
board will never increase in speed, while the host processor gets
faster every year, I think you can see why emulation is the better
long-term solution.
-michael
Check out amazing quality 8-bit Apple sound on my
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/