> On Feb 17, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Marc Holz via cctech
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have the keyboard for a LMI Lambda Lispmachine but I'm missing the
> computer itself.
Where’d you get this from, and do you have any idea what happened to the
machine it was once
On 2/17/18 9:45 PM, Chris Hanson via cctalk wrote:
> Really though, you should find someone with an LMI Lambda to give the
> keyboard to. It belongs with its mate.
CHM has two Lambdas, but no keyboards or monitors.
http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102668040
Really though, you should find someone with an LMI Lambda to give
the keyboard to. It belongs with its mate.
Indeed! And if you do find a Lambda, then there would be quite a few
people interested in learning more gnarly details about the
architecture.
Marc,
Probably the best bet for an LMI Lambda emulator is Daniel Seagrave's LD
GitHub project. See:
https://github.com/dseagrav/ld
It has directions on where to get the LMI code (bitsavers) and how to set
up the emulator. I use it quite a bit and it works quite well.
Of course, it has mappings
There’s an emulator called LambdaDelta by Daniel Seagraves:
https://github.com/dseagrav/ld/
Really though, you should find someone with an LMI Lambda to give the keyboard
to. It belongs with its mate.
— Chris
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 17, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Marc Holz via cctalk
I haven’t seen an emulator for an LMI, but here’s a link to a CADR emulator
that was the precursor to both Symbolics and LMI so it might be worthwhile to
try out.
TTFN - Guy
> On Feb 17, 2018, at 7:29 AM, Marc Holz via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>
>
> I have the
On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 11:24:55AM -0500, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
>> that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
>> somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
>>
I assume that the shutdown of Slysoft (ANYDVD) was facilitated by DMCA.
On Sat, 11 Feb 2017, Eric Smith wrote:
I don't know, but I rather doubt it. The MPAA and/or studios would have
publicized a victory against Slysoft.
That would make sense. At least as far as I understand it, and would
> > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
> > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
> > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
> > relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Eric Smith
> Sent: 11 February 2017 07:12
> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
> <cctalk@classiccmp.org>
> Subject: Re: LMI Lambda?
>
> On Fri, Feb 10
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
> I assume that the shutdown of Slysoft (ANYDVD) was facilitated by DMCA.
>
I don't know, but I rather doubt it. The MPAA and/or studios would have
publicized a victory against Slysoft.
I'd love to see more info on when one was successfully enforced on an
end-user.
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Wikipedia is a good start.
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, geneb wrote:
Interesting read, thanks.
That case upheld the click-through/shrinkwrap
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I think also that whatever your decision is, that people should simply
respect that. Better be safe than sorry after all.
Absolutely!
Whether or not WE think that there is a danger is not the point.
And, whether we think that the LAW would rule
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
> > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
> > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
> > relaxed
I think also that whatever your decision is, that people should simply
respect that. Better be safe than sorry after all.
> > Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
> > that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
> > somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
> > relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors.
>
>
> Remember that Sony purchased the rights to the Virtual Game Station
> emulator from Connectix because they lost in court.
It's a really cool emulator, too. Works well. *pats G4*
--
personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 2:02 PM, Chris Hanson wrote:
>
>> It doesn’t matter if the company hasn’t existed since the late 80s - Someone
>> somewhere owns the IP rights and as soon as they see interest in it they’re
>> going to see potential dollar signs.
>
> As near
On Feb 9, 2017, at 3:34 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
> Absent a license from the rightsholder, emulators are illegal. Full stop, end
> of sentence. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
As others have pointed out, this is not the case.
Remember
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>
>> From: Alfred M. Szmidt
>
>> System 46 for the MIT CADR is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license --
>> start hacking. ;-) You even have an emulator for the MIT CADR.
>
> Everyone seems to have blown right past
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
> From: Alfred M. Szmidt
> System 46 for the MIT CADR is licensed under a 3-clause BSD license --
> start hacking. ;-) You even have an emulator for the MIT CADR.
Everyone seems to have blown right past this, but it might be important.
Does anyone know if the Lambda matches the
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> OK, so, if the community can have a collective search down behind the
> sofa cushions and provide you with original kit and software -- would
> you want that? Would it help?
Oh, I meant to include that if someone did
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Warner Losh wrote:
Speaking in absolutes in the IP field is often unwise.
Only:
"Don't mess with the mouse."
In addition to occasional changes in the laws and in their interpretation,
there is always the issue, as mentioned in one of the early posts, that
annoying the
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 18:37, Daniel Seagraves
> wrote:
>> I wish I had the opposite problem. This whole hypothetical emulation from
>> hypothetical zilch business is a hypothetical pain in the
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
> that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
> somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
> relaxed slightly to permit use
On 9 February 2017 at 18:37, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
> I wish I had the opposite problem. This whole hypothetical emulation from
> hypothetical zilch business is a hypothetical pain in the hypothetical ass.
AIUI they are rather complex machines, yes.
> Well, unless
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:33 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> Ah, now, yes, then there we have a problem. :-)
I wish I had the opposite problem. This whole hypothetical emulation from
hypothetical zilch business is a hypothetical pain in the hypothetical ass.
> OK, so, if the
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:26 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>>
>> On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote:
>>> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then
>>>
On 9 February 2017 at 18:30, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>> But otherwise, so long as you own the software or a licence thereto,
>> you can run it on whatever you want, in most cases.
>
> And there’s the rub, because...
>
>> Do you own at least 1 of the original machine?
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 10:16 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote:
>> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then
>> TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense.
I started
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote:
>> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then
>> TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense.
>
>
> AIUI
> Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
> that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
> somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
> relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors.
EULAs have the same
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Liam Proven wrote:
Apple is slightly different -- the licence for Mac OS X stipulates
that you're only allowed to run it on Apple-branded hardware. This is
somewhere between rare and unique, though, and it has recently been
relaxed slightly to permit use of hypervisors.
On 9 February 2017 at 18:06, geneb wrote:
> If you don't (at least) have the official distribution media, then
> TECHNICALLY you'd be violating the copyright. Otherwise, it's nonsense.
AIUI -- and IANAL -- this is correct, yes.
The issue here is not running the software,
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Mouse wrote:
Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run copyrighted
code. If that's what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and
I retract my question.
Yeah, I
On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
Absent a license from the rightsholder, emulators are illegal. Full
stop, end of sentence. Go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not
collect $200.
Barring actual evidence to the contrary, I call bullshit.
g.
--
Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007
As for a LispM emulator, personally, what I'd like to do (but don't
have the resources to do and have other things I'd prefer to put my
time into) would be to develop an emulator - with a legitimate copy of
the software to test it against - then work on developing an
alternative,
However, doesnât developing the emulator make you an accessory to the
violation?
Emulators are fully legal to write, maintain and develop in the US and
EU. What is illegal is the distribution of copyrighted material. For
example, any boot ROM would have to be stripped, software to get
>> Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run
>> copyrighted code. If that's what you were talking about, then I
>> misunderstood, and I retract my question.
> Yeah, I should have clarified - Using an emulator to run copyrighted code. I$
> However, doesnâ??t developing the
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 7:13 AM, Mouse wrote:
>
> Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run copyrighted
> code. If that's what you were talking about, then I misunderstood, and
> I retract my question.
Yeah, I should have clarified - Using an
> Absent a license from the rightsholder, emulators are illegal. Full stop, en$
I think this is the first time I've seen this claimed. What is the
basis for it? That is, what law would be violated by such a thing?
Note that I am not talking about _using_ an emulator to run copyrighted
code.
> On Feb 8, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Chris Hanson wrote:
>
> No. :)
>
> I presume you’re working on something related to CADR, LMI Lambda, and TI
> Explorer emulation. Why not do so in the open?
Presume all you want, but I can’t confirm or deny anything I may or may not
No. :)
I presume you’re working on something related to CADR, LMI Lambda, and TI
Explorer emulation. Why not do so in the open?
-- Chris
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:16 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>
> Everyone point and laugh; I am ten kinds of stupid.
>
> Would
Everyone point and laugh; I am ten kinds of stupid.
Would everyone who isn’t Al pretend you did not see the previous email please?
:)
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>
>
>> On Feb 5, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>>
> On Feb 5, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Al Kossow wrote:
>
> pictures and firmware now uploaded to
> http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/lmi/
>
> does anyone still have schematics for the Lambda? would be nice to archive a
> set for the artifacts in CHM's collection.
Not that we
pictures and firmware now uploaded to
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/lmi/
does anyone still have schematics for the Lambda? would be nice to archive a
set for the artifacts in CHM's collection.
On 1/25/17 5:43 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
> If there is anyone out there who has access to
oh.. it is currently on exhibit, so getting access internally will be difficult
On 1/25/17 8:15 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
> http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102668040
>
> On 1/25/17 5:43 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
>> If there is anyone out there who has access to or knows someone
http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102668040
On 1/25/17 5:43 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
> If there is anyone out there who has access to or knows someone who has
> access to an LMI Lambda in any condition or
> configuration, please contact me.
>
49 matches
Mail list logo