Re: LMI Lambda?

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

RE: need (physical) key for Sun SPARCserver 1000e

Or, you could just open up the box and replace the switch with one that doesn't require a key. bill From: cctalk [cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] on behalf of Mark G Thomas [m...@misty.com] Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 3:06 PM To: General Discussion:

Re: need (physical) key for Sun SPARCserver 1000e

Hi, On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 12:29:17AM -0600, Jerry Kemp wrote: > ... > >>I was informed that the key I need is part #330-1651 . > >> > >>This key was shared by the SS1000, SC2000, StorEdge L1000, StorEdge L140, > >>StorEdge L400, SPARCstorage Library Model 8/400, 8/140, and possibly other >

Re: need (physical) key for Sun SPARCserver 1000e

On 2017-02-09 00:44, Jerry Kemp wrote: Just a little more info. I was informed that the key I need is part #330-1651 . This key was shared by the SS1000, SC2000, StorEdge L1000, StorEdge L140, StorEdge L400, SPARCstorage Library Model 8/400, 8/140, and possibly other hardware of that vintage.

A bunch of vintage items available

Just passing this on. Please contact Dan directly at: Daniel de Long He's located in Sacramento, CA and in the past was willing to ship. Bob Equipment available: 1 IBM 552 Interpreter 1 IBM 557 Interpreter with manuals 1 MIA 557 Interpreter (IBM) with manuals 3 IBM

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: need (physical) key for Sun SPARCserver 1000e

This page was a hit from the PN below, and looks like an interesting reference to save away. http://www.shrubbery.net/~heas/sun-feh-2_1/Devices/AC_Power/ACPOWER_Keys.html thanks Jim On 2/8/2017 9:44 PM, Jerry Kemp wrote: Just a little more info. I was informed that the key I need is part

RSTS V7 magtape images on bitsavers

Gents, I'm looking at a set of RSTS V7 magtape images (a release kit) which have an odd format that gives SIMH fits. In the container formats I'm used to, each tape block image is preceded and followed by the data length as a 4-byte value. In SIMH that's rounded up to even, in E11 format

SWTPC 6800 for sale

I have a very nice SWTPC 6800 for sale. Please see the ad on the VCF forums for complete information. If you have inquiries, please do send them directly to me via e-mail. Thanks! Sellam

Re: need (physical) key for Sun SPARCserver 1000e

FInd someone with a key Get both sides scanned, print with a grid of 1/10th inch, or use measurement software, etc Take to a real lock smith, not Home Despot, or some store where cutting keys is a side profit. 99.9% of the time s/he will say oh that's a Make, type, etc and from the picture he

FOR SALE: SWTPC 6800

I have a nice SWTPC 6800 with a color video board and custom sound board for sale. The ad is on the VCF forums: http://www.vcfed.org/forum/showthread.php?56190-SouthWest-Technical-Products-Corporation-(SWTPC)-6800=447078#post447078 Please inquire directly to me via e-mail if you have any

Re: RSTS V7 magtape images on bitsavers

> On Feb 9, 2017, at 5:39 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > Gents, > > I'm looking at a set of RSTS V7 magtape images (a release kit) which have an > odd format that gives SIMH fits. > > In the container formats I'm used to, each tape block image is preceded and > followed

Re: RSTS V7 magtape images on bitsavers

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Zane Healy wrote: > > What is the file extension? TPC or TAP? I forget which SIMH uses, but there > used to be a converter available to go from the format that many of the tape > images are in, to the one SIMH uses. > > Zane SIMH does at

Re: More of the collection for sale: Franklin ACE 100, LNW-80, Commodore PET 8032

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 03:41:26PM -0800, Sellam Ismail wrote: > > Although you can contact me on the VCForums, I would much prefer you > contact me directly through e-mail if you're interested in any of these > fine systems. > Hi Sellam I sent you mail a few days back with an offer for the

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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.

Re: LMI Lambda?

>> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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,

Re: LMI Lambda?

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

Re: need (physical) key for Sun SPARCserver 1000e

Apparently the part number is 330-1651 http://docs.smoe.org/sun/feh/docs/wcd00015/wcd015cd.htm Richard Sheppard

Re: LMI Lambda?

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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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,

Re: LMI Lambda?

However, doesn’t 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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 >>>

Re: LMI Lambda?

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? > >

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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.

Re: LMI Lambda?

> 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

Re: LMI Lambda?

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