On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Liam Proven wrote:
"Here's the code. To use it, you'll need ROM images and images of
software. These are not provided and won't be, so don't ask. Get your
own and it is your problem to ensure that you are legal."
Is there a QUALITATIVE difference between FREE distribution and SOLD?
"You need to buy and own a copy of the original" was the premise when
Apparat sold APR-DOS (a copy of TRS-DOS with an amazingly large number of
bug-fix patches). It was later called NEWDOS.
When that wasn't working in the lawsuit, Apparat tried an approach of
claiming that it was so rewritten that there was nothing left of the
original code. THAT fell apart when it was demonstrated that they had
missed a hidden full-screen copyright message of RANDY COOK. (Radio Shack
changed that to TANDY CORP in subsequent releases of TRS-DOS)
That was before "look and feel" (Lotus V Paperback), and was in a time
when "clean room" direct imitations were considered legit, if they had no
copied internal code. The result was merciful - Apparat was permitted to
simply rewrite and come up with a non-infringing OS! (NEWDOS-80)
"Look and feel" banned clean code that had the same user inteface
appearance, which seriously jeopardizes legal standing of any emulators.
The courts didn't even go for Delrina's "PARODY!" defense of Opus And Bill
shooting flying toasters, and Delrina's legal research people FAILED to
come up with a copy of "Thirty Seconds Over Winterland", which could have
given a "prior art" defense.
When Apple came down on GEM, did Xerox get mentioned?
If "all property is theft" ("we stole it from the Indians FIRST"), then
what is "Intellectual Property"?
