[A83] Re: DS Thread Extended onto this list
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
[A83] Re: DS Thread Extended onto this list
> " I tried to make a long and complicated story a little shorter. Sorry
> if I oversimplified matters."
>
> I think you, like every other poster in that thread, lack a grasp for
> what the original email said:
>
> v1.15 os is copyrighted by TI. The license to use it does not include
> any rights to modify or distribute. Making available the routine to
> "unlock flash" may contribute to infringement by others and would not
> be viewed on favorably by TI.
>
> We trust that now that this has been brought to your attention you
> will not support or endorse copyright infringement behavior by your
> members or staff.
>
> Where in that statement did he even /mention/ an OS other than v1.15
> from TI?
He didn't. The problem is that Michael can only distribute his os if he
tells
everyone how to load a non-ti os on the calc. This would enable others
to load anything they like, including illegal stuff, like "modded" version
of
ti-os without signature checking, for instance.
> He proceeds then to quote from the forums calc83p saying:
>
> I have heard that Michael Vincent is writing his own os for the 83+. I
> was wondering if this was true because I would like to edit, not rewrite,
> the v1.15 os so that i can take out the finance app... Could you,
> Michael Vincent, help me with this?
>
> And Michael responded with:
>
> I shall. I'm just waiting until I'm done with my OS, and then it will
> be released.
With all due respect, this was stupid of Michael. His os-from-scratch is (if
we overlook the way how it is put on the calc) perfectly legal, there is no
way ti could do anything to stop him. Here he basicly said: "I'll modify ti
os
for you", which *is* illegal.
> SOOOOO... you, like every reader of the email, have grossly expanded old
> Herb's objections to a "flash unlock" routine to: You can't make a new
> OS. You must understand that placing a new OS /doesn't require editing
> the old codebase/.
I *do* get that. (Some other posters on the ds forum didn't.)
> The relevant discussion is because a circumvention of the validation is
> required (requiring no modified codebase, mind you).
There is a big gap between forging a digital signature, and using a trick to
the effect that the signature is never checked (or an incorrect signature
ignored???). The forging is definitly illegal (US and elsewere). I'm not a
lawyer, but I'd expect that the circumventing would be illegal too, (in the
US) because of the DMCA (and legal in (most) other countries?).
> Also, I would like to apologize: The validation requires 3 bytes, not 2.
Whether it's two bytes or three is irrelevant, there is no way ti could
copyright that, even if it's 3 bytes.
> --
> Scott Dial
> scott@scottdial.com
> AIM GeekMug : ICQ# 3608935
Rob van Wijk
--
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more http://www.gmx.net +++
NEU: Mit GMX ins Internet. Rund um die Uhr für 1 ct/ Min. surfen!
Follow-Ups:
References: